SELECTED CASES BY TYPE OF CONTRACT INVOLVED
SELECTED CASES BY NATIONALITY OF THE PARTIES
SELECTED CASES BY DOMESTIC LAW INVOLVED
| KEYWORD | Count of Cases |
|---|---|
| ALGERIAN LAW | 1 |
| ARGENTINIAN LAW | 9 |
| AUSTRALIAN LAW | 14 |
| AUSTRIAN LAW | 3 |
| BELORUSSIAN LAW | 6 |
| BRAZILIAN LAW | 4 |
| CHINESE LAW | 17 |
| COLOMBIAN LAW | 8 |
| COSTA RICAN LAW | 4 |
| CYPRIOT LAW | 1 |
| CZECH LAW | 1 |
| DANISH LAW | 1 |
| DUTCH CARRIBEAN LAW | 1 |
| DUTCH LAW | 8 |
| ECUADORIAN LAW | 2 |
| EGYPTIAN LAW | 1 |
| ENGLISH LAW | 23 |
| FRENCH LAW | 11 |
| GERMAN LAW | 6 |
| GREEK LAW | 1 |
| INDIAN LAW | 2 |
| IRANIAN LAW | 1 |
| IRISH LAW | 1 |
| ISRAELI LAW | 1 |
| ITALIAN LAW | 32 |
| IVORIAN LAW | 1 |
| JAPANESE LAW | 1 |
| KAZAKH LAW | 1 |
| KUWAITI LAW | 1 |
| LAW OF A EASTERN EUROPEAN COUNTRY | 1 |
| LAW OF A NORDIC COUNTRY | 1 |
| LAW OF THE GERMAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC | 1 |
| LAW OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK | 2 |
| LEBANESE LAW | 2 |
| LIBYAN LAW | 1 |
| LITHUANIAN LAW | 16 |
| MEXICAN LAW | 3 |
| NEW ZEALAND LAW | 5 |
| NORWEGIAN LAW | 2 |
| PAKISTANI LAW | 1 |
| PAKISTANI LAW | 1 |
| PARAGUAYAN LAW | 30 |
| POLISH LAW | 6 |
| PORTUGUESE LAW | 3 |
| QUEBEC LAW | 4 |
| ROMANIAN LAW | 6 |
| RUSSIAN LAW | 79 |
|
Arbitral Award Ad hoc Arbitration, Paris 21-04-1997 LOAN AGREEMENT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN TRADE ORGANIZATION AND A UNITED STATES COMPANY - PARTIES' CHOICE OF DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) - IF NECESSARY SUPPLEMENTED BY THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AVOIDANCE OF CONTRACT - PARTY'S CONDUCT PRECLUDING ITS ABILITY TO CLAIM THE INVALIDITY OF THE CONTRACT (VENIRE CONTRA FACTUM PROPRIUM) (ARTS. 3.12 AND 4.3 (C)UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES) | |
|
Arbitral Award ICC International Court of Arbitration, Zürich 9117 00-03-1998 SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN SELLER AND A CANADIAN BUYER - GOVERNED BY CISG - MATTERS OUTSIDE SCOPE OF CISG GOVERNED BY DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS "THEY ARE SAID TO REFLECT A WORLD-WIDE CONSENSUS IN MOST OF THE BASIC MATTERS OF CONTRACT LAW" MERGER CLAUSE (ART. 2.17 [ART. 2.1.17 OF THE 2004 EDITION] UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES) WRITTEN MODIFICATION CLAUSE (ART. 29(2) CISG) (ART. 2.18 [ART. 2.1.18 OF THE 2004 EDITION] UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES) INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACT ACCORDING TO ESTABLISHED PRACTICE BETWEEN PARTIES (ART. 4.3 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES) | |
|
Arbitral Award International Court of Arbitration of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Republic of Belarus 30-05-2000 SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN BELORUSSIAN COMPANY AND FRENCH COMPANY - BELORUSSIAN LAW AS GOVERNING LAW - APPLICATION OF THE CISG SINCE PARTIES SITUATED IN TWO CONTRACTING STATES (ART. 1(1)(A) CISG) RIGHT TO INTEREST - RATE OF INTEREST NOT DETERMINED BY CISG - REFERENCE BY PLAINTIFF TO ART. 7.4.9(2)UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES - COURT DECIDING ACCORDINGLY | |
|
Arbitral Award International Court of Arbitration of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Republic of Belarus 31-05-2000 SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN BELARUSIAN COMPANY AND FRENCH COMPANY - BELORUSSIAN LAW AS GOVERNING LAW - APPLICATION OF THE CISG SINCE PARTIES SITUATED IN TWO CONTRACTING STATES (ART. 1(1)(A) CISG) RIGHT TO INTEREST - RATE OF INTEREST NOT DETERMINED BY CISG - PARTIES' REFERENCE TO ART. 7.4.9(2)UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES - COURT DECIDING ACCORDINGLY | |
|
Arbitral Award Belorussian Chamber of Commerce and Industry International Court of Arbitration 22-12-2000 SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN A BAHAMIAN COMPANY AND A BELORUSSIAN COMPANY - PARTIES AGREE ON APPLICATION OF BELORUSSIAN LAW - CISG APPLICABLE ACCORDING TO ART. 1(1)(B) DELAYED PAYMENT OF THE PRICE - SELLER ENTITLED TO INTEREST (ART. 78 CISG) - APPLICABLE RATE TO BE DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW - RATE OF INTEREST DETERMINED BY BELARUS NATIONAL BANK NOT APPLICABLE TO SALE CONTRACT IN DISPUTE PLAINTIFF INVOKING RATE AS PROVIDED BY ART. 7.4.9 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES - REQUEST DISMISSED BY ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL ON GROUND THAT UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLY ONLY IF AGREED BETWEEN THE PARTIES | |
|
Arbitral Award Camera arbitrale nazionale ed internazionale di Milano 28-09-2001 SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN A CYPRIOT COMPANY AND AN ITALIAN COMPANY – CONTRACT GOVERNED BY CISG (CF. ARTS. 1 (A) AND 10 (A)), SUPPLEMENTED BY RUSSIAN LAW AS THE LAW MOST CLOSELY CONNECTED WITH THE CONTRACT BUYER’S FAILURE TO SUBMIT DOCUMENTS SELLER NEEDED TO EXPLAIN TO RUSSIAN EXPORT AND EXCHANGE CONTROL AUTHORITIES AN AGREED PRICE REDUCTION AND EXTENDED DATE OF PAYMENT – BREACH OF GENERAL DUTY OF COOPERATION BETWEEN PARTIES – REFERENCE BY ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL TO ART. 5.3 [NOW 5.1.3] OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Arbitral Award International Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation 05-11-2002 SERVICE CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN COMPANY AND A GERMAN COMPANY - CONTRACT PROVIDING FOR APPLICATION OF BOTH GERMAN LAW AND RUSSIAN LAW AND OF THE “GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF THE LEX MERCATORIA“ – APPLICATION OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES. INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACT – NATURE OF THE CONTRACT AND INTENTION OF THE PARTIES (ARTICLES 4.1 AND 4.3 OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES). INTEREST PAYABLE ON AMOUNT DUE – MONETARY CLAIM IN EURO – APPLICATION OF THE INTEREST RATE APPLIED BY RUSSIAN BANKS FOR LOANS STIPULATED IN EURO (ARTICLE 7.4.9 OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES). | |
|
Arbitral Award International Arbitration Court of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation 06-11-2002 SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN COMPANY AND A CANADIAN COMPANY INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACTS - APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) REFERRING TO "TRADE USAGES" (ARTICLE 431 OF THE RUSSIAN CIVIL CODE) – APPLICATION OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS RULES WIDELY USED IN INTERNATIONAL PRACTICE LINGUISTIC DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN TWO EQUALLY AUTHORITATIVE LANGUAGE VERSIONS OF THE CONTRACT (ARTICLE 4.7 OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES) | |
|
Arbitral Award International Arbitration Court of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation 04-04-2003 SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN SELLER AND A GERMAN BUYER - GOVERNED BY CISG AND, WITH RESPECT TO ISSUES NOT COVERED BY IT, BY RUSSIAN LAW AS THE LAW OF THE SELLER (ART. 7 CISG IN CONJUNCTION WITH ART. 166 OF THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF CIVIL LEGISLATION OF 1991) CONTRACT PROVIDED FOR A PENALTY IN CASE OF DELAYED PAYMENT OF THE PRICE - PENALTY AMOUNTING TO 0.5% OF PRICE FOR EACH DAY OF DELAY - CONSIDERED TO BE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE - PENALTY REDUCED BY COURT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CISG, ARTS. 333 AND 394 OF THE RUSSIAN CIVIL CODE AND ART. 7.4.13 OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES DEFINED AS "A CODE OF THE WELL-ESTABLISHED RULES OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE REFLECTING THE APPROACHES OF THE PRINCIPAL LEGAL SYSTEMS”. | |
|
Arbitral Award International Arbitration Court of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation 06-06-2003 SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN RUSSIAN SELLER AND SOUTH KOREAN BUYER - GOVERNED BY RUSSIAN LAW - CISG APPLICABLE ACCORDING TO ART. 1(1)(B). DEFECTIVE GOODS - CLAIM FOR DAMAGES BY BUYER - AMOUNT OF DAMAGES AWARDED REDUCED ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT HARM WAS DUE IN PART TO BUYER'S CONDUCT - REFERENCE TO ARTS. 74 AND 77 CISG AS WELL AS TO ART. 7.4.7 OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES (AS WELL AS RELATIVE COMMENT) WHICH EXPRESSLY ADDRESS THIS SITUATION | |
|
Arbitral Award International Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation 12-11-2004 SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN RUSSIAN SELLER AND HUNGARIAN BUYER - PARTIES CHOOSE RUSSIAN LAW AS THE LAW GOVERNING THEIR CONTRACT - HUNGARIAN BUYER INVOKED ALSO APPLICATION OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS USAGE OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE - RUSSIAN SELLER OBJECTED - ARBITRATION COURT DECIDED NOT TO APPLY THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Arbitral Award International Arbitration Court of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation 30-01-2007 SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN A GERMAN COMPANY AND A RUSSIAN COMPANY - CISG APPLICABLE SINCE PARTIES ARE SITUATED IN DIFFERENT CONTRACTING STATES BUYER'S CLAIM FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - REQUIREMENTS FOR SUCH REMEDY NOT SPECIFIED IN EITHER CISG OR RUSSIAN LAW APPLICABLE UNDER ARTICLE 7(2) CISG - RECOURSE TO THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES DEFINED AS A SUPPLEMENTARY SOURCE OF RULES OF LAW REFLECTING CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL TRENDS WHICH PROVIDE SOUND SOLUTIONS TO INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL DISPUTES BUYER'S CLAIM FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - HAS TO BE MADE WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME AFTER THE BUYER BECAME, OR OUGHT TO HAVE BECOME, AWARE OF THE NON-PERFORMANCE (ARTICLE 7.2.2 OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES) | |
|
Arbitral Award International Arbitration Court of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation 01-02-2007 SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN AN ESTONIAN COMPANY AND A KAZAKH COMPANY - CONTRACT PROVIDED THAT RUSSIAN LAW WAS THE LAW GOVERNING THE CONTRACT - PARTIES SITUATED IN DIFFERENT CONTRACTING STATES OF CISG - CISG APPLICABLE DELIVERY OF ONLY PART OF THE GOODS - ADVANCE PAYMENT OF PRICE - RESTITUTION OF PRICE PAID FOR GOODS NOT RECEIVED (ART. 81 CISG) - REFERENCE ALSO TO ARTS. 7.2.1, 7.2.2 AND 1.3 OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Arbitral Award International Arbitration Court of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation 27-03-2007 SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN A BRITISH VIRGIN ISLAND COMPANY AND A RUSSIAN COMPANY - RUSSIAN LAW CHOSEN BY PARTIES AS THE LAW GOVERNING THE CONTRACT IMPUTATION OF NON-MONETARY OBLIGATIONS (ART. 522 OF THE RUSSIAN CIVIL CODE) - REFERENCE ALSO TO COMMENTS TO ART. 6.1.13 OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Arbitral Award International Arbitration Court of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation 09-04-2008 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT - BETWEEN A POLISH COMPANY AND A RUSSIAN COMPANY - CONTRACT GOVERNED BY RUSSIAN LAW CLAIM TO HAND OVER FULL SET OF TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION - ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL, HAVING FOUND NO SPECIFIC REGULATION IN RUSSIAN LAW DEALING WITH SUCH REQUEST OF SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, APPLIED ARTICLE 7.2.2 ("PERFORMANCE OF NON-MONETARY OBLIGATION") OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES. | |
|
Arbitral Award International Arbitration Court of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation 22-12-2008 SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN A GERMAN COMPANY AND A RUSSIAN COMPANY - CONTRACT GOVERNED BY RUSSIAN LAW MODIFICATION OF WRITTEN CONTRACT BY AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES - MUST BE MADE IN WRITING AGREEMENT THROUGH EXCHANGE OF DOCUMENTS AND ELECTRONIC MESSAGES -REQUIREMENT OF WRITING MET - REFERENCE TO RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF RUSSIAN CIVIL CODE AS WELL AS TO ARTICLE 2.1.1 AND 4.1 TO 4.3 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Arbitral Award International Arbitration Court of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation 09-04-2009 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT - BETWEEN A POLISH COMPANY AND A RUSSIAN COMPANY UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED BY ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL AS THE LAW APPLICABLE TO SUBSTANCE OF DISPUTE TOGETHER WITH RUSSIAN LAW CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT - RIGHT TO REQUIRE PERFORMANCE OF NON-MONETARY OBLIGATION - REFERENCE TO ART. 7.2.2 LIT. C) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Arbitral Award International Arbitration Court of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation 02-06-2009 SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN RUSSIAN AND CHINESE COMPANY - GOVERNED BY RUSSIAN LAW REQUEST TO RETURN ADVANCE PAYMENT AND TO REPAY COSTS OF PARTICIPATING IN SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS - ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL, HAVING FOUND NO SPECIFIC REGULATION IN APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW ADDRESSING THE ISSUE AT STAKE, REFERRED TO THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS LEX MERCATORIA IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY THEIR SUBSIDIARY APPLICATION TO RUSSIAN CIVIL LAW - APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 7.4.8 ("MITIGATION OF HARM") | |
|
Arbitral Award International Arbitration Court of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation 06-07-2009 CONSULTING CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN COMPANY AND AN ENGLISH COMPANY - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS MEANS FOR INTERPRETING AND SUPPLEMENTING APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) CONSULTANCY CONTRACT BETWEEN RUSSIAN AND ENGLISH COMPANY - REFERENCE TO ARTICLES 1.7 AND 5.1.3 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Arbitral Award International Arbitration Court of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation 05-07-2011 SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO RUSSIAN COMPANIES - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS A MEANS OF INTERPRETING APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES DESIGNED AS "THE RECOMMENDED SOURCE OF RULES GOVERNING GENERAL ISSUES OF PERFORMANCE AND INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACTS OF AN INTERNATIONAL CHARACTER". "CONTRA PROFERENTEM" RULE - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 4.6 OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS | |
|
Arbitral Award International Arbitration Court of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation 16-03-2012 LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - LICENSING AND SERVICE AGREEMENT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN COMPANY AND A CYPRIOT COMPANY UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS A MEANS OF INTERPRETING APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES DEFINED AS "THE RECOMMENDED SOURCE OF RULES GOVERNING GENERAL ISSUES OF PERFORMANCE AND INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACTS OF AN INTERNATIONAL CHARACTER". REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 1.7 AND 5.1.3 OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS | |
|
Arbitral Award Ad hoc arbitration 30-03-2012 STATE CONTRACTS - LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND A UNITED STATES INVESTOR – REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN SUPPORT OF THE LAW APPLICABLE TO THE SUBSTANCE OF THE DISPUTE (RUSSIAN LAW) RATE OF INTEREST – REFERENCE TO ART. 7.4.9 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN SUPPORT OF ART. 395 OF THE RUSSIAN CIVIL CODE | |
|
Arbitral Award International Arbitration Court of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation 23-08-2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN COMPANY AND A UNITED STATES COMPANY - ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL APPLIED RUSSIAN LAW AND, AT THE REQUEST OF THE UNITED STATES COMPANY, ALSO THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES INCONSISTENT BEHAVIOUR - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 1.8 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Arbitral Award International Arbitration Court of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation 01-07-2013 SHARE PURCHASE AGREEMENT - BETWEEN A CYPRIOT COMPANY AND AN AUSTRIAN COMPANY - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES DEFINED AS "A DOCUMENT OF UNIFICATION OF PRIVATE LAW WHICH IN THE PRACTICE OF MAJORITY OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRES INCLUDING THE ICAC IS CONSIDERED AS A RECOMMENDED DOCUMENT REGULATING GENERAL ISSUES OF THE PERFORMANCE OF INTERNATIONAL CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS". PAYMENT OF MONETARY OBLIGATION BY FUNDS TRANSFER - TIME AT WHICH THE DEBTOR'S OBLIGATION IS DISCHARGED - NOT EXPRESSLY ESTABLISHED BY RUSSIAN CIVIL LEGISLATION - REFERENCE TO ART. 6.1.8 (2) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Arbitral Award International Arbitration Court of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation 16-07-2013 SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN AND A CHINESE COMPANY - CONTRACT GOVERNED BY THE CISG - ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL APPLIED ALSO RUSSIAN LAW AND THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS A MEANS FOR SUPPLEMENTING THE CISG REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 1.7 AND 5.1.3 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Arbitral Award International Arbitration Court of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation 06-08-2015 COMMISSION CONTRACT - LINKED TO A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AND TO A CONTRACT FOR PERFORMANCE OF WORKS AND PROVISION OF SERVICES - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN COMPANY AND A GERMAN COMPANY - GOVERNED BY RUSSIAN LAW - ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL DECIDED TO APPLY ALSO TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES 2010 GIVEN THE COMPLEXITY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND THE FACT THAT IT WAS A MATTER OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE NOTION OF DEFECTIVE GOODS - REFERENCE BY THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL TO ARTS. 1.7, 5.1.6 AND 4.8 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Belarus Supreme Economic Court of the Republic of Belarus 03-01-2003 SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN BELORUSSIAN COMPANY AND POLISH COMPANY - BELORUSSIAN LAW AS GOVERNING LAW - APPLICATION OF THE CISG SINCE PARTIES SITUATED IN TWO CONTRACTING STATES (ART. 1(1)(A) CISG) RIGHT TO INTEREST - RATE OF INTEREST NOT DETERMINED BY CISG - COURT HELD RATE TO BE DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH "GENERAL RULES OF INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS (UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES)" - REFERENCE TO ART. 7.4.9(2)UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Belarus Supreme Economic Court of the Republic of Belarus 20-05-2003 SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN A UNITED STATES AND A BELORUSSIAN COMPANY - GOVERNED BY BELORUSSIAN LAW CISG APPLICABLE SINCE PARTIES SITUATED IN TWO CONTRACTING STATES NON-PAYMENT OF THE PRICE - SELLER ENTITLED TO INTEREST (ART. 78 CISG) - RATE OF INTEREST DETERMINED ACCORDING TO ART. 7.4.9(2) OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Belarus Commercial Court of Brest Region 08-11-2006 SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN BELARUSSIAN COMPANY AND RUSSIAN COMPANY - GOVERNED BY CISG RATE OF INTEREST TO BE DETERMINED BY APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (BELORUSSIAN LAW) - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 7.4.9(2) OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS "INTERNATIONAL TRADE USAGES" APPLICABLE ACCORDING TO ART. 1093 (1) OF BELORUSSIAN CIVIL CODE | |
|
Russian Federation Federal Arbitrazh Court of the Volgo-Vyatsky District 27-06-2003 LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - STORAGE SERVICE CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO RUSSIAN COMPANIES - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO CONFIRM THE SOLUTION PROVIDED BY APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW). NOTION OF FORCE MAJEURE - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 401(3) OF THE RUSSIAN CIVIL CODE AND TO ARTICLE 7.1.7 OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Russian Federation Arbitrazh Court of Primorsky territory 30-11-2007 SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN COMPANY AND A KOREAN COMPANY - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED AS MEANS OF INTERPRETING DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) USAGES WIDELY KNOWN AND REGULARLY OBSERVED IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE - REFERENCE BY ONE OF THE PARTIES TO ARTICLE 1.9 OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS CONTRACT CONCLUDED BY SEQUENCE OF OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE OR PARTIES' CONDUCT SUFFICIENT TO SHOW AGREEMENT - REFERENCE BY ONE OF THE PARTIES TO ARTICLE 2.1.1 OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS | |
|
Russian Federation Supreme Commercial Court of Russian Federation 14-03-2008 REPAIR SERVICE CONTRACT - BETWEEN AN UKRAINIAN COMPANY AND A RUSSIAN COMPANY - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN SUPPORT OF THE SOLUTION ADOPTED UNDER APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) DAMAGES - FORSEEABILITY OF HARM - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 7.4.4 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Russian Federation Arbitrazh Court of Khanty-Mansi Autonomous District – Yugra 08-07-2008 ADMINISTRATIVE CONTRACTS - SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN REGIONAL SOCIAL SECURITY FUND AND A RUSSIAN COMPANY UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED AS MEANS OF INTERPRETING DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) FORCE MAJEURE - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 7.1.7 OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Russian Federation Arbitrazh Court of the Krasnoyarsk region 21-05-2009 LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - SERVICE CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO RUSSIAN COMPANIES - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS A MEANS OF INTERPRETING APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) FORCE MAJEURE - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 7.1.7 IN SUPPORT OF SIMILAR SOLUTION UNDER RUSSIAN LAW | |
|
Russian Federation Thirteenth circuit arbitrazh court of appeal 05-06-2009 SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO RUSSIAN COMPANIES – REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET AND SUPPLEMENT APPLICABLE LAW (RUSSIAN LAW). NOTION OF FORCE MAJEURE – REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 7.1.7 OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Russian Federation Second circuit Arbitrazh Court of Appeal 24-08-2009 SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO RUSSIAN COMPANIES - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS A MEANS OF INTERPRETING OR SUPPLEMENTING APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) SUPERVENING FINANCIAL CRISIS IMPEDING BUYER FROM PAYING THE PRICE - DOES NOT AMOUNT TO FORCE MAJEURE BECAUSE NOT AN UNAVOIDABLE EVENT - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 7.1.7 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Russian Federation Second circuit Arbitrazh Court of Appeal 15-09-2009 SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO RUSSIAN COMPANIES - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS A MEANS OF INTERPRETING OR SUPPLEMENTING APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) SUPERVENING FINANCIAL CRISIS IMPEDING BUYER FROM PAYING THE PRICE - DOES NOT AMOUNT TO FORCE MAJEURE BECAUSE NOT AN UNAVOIDABLE EVENT - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 7.1.7 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Russian Federation Second circuit Arbitrazh Court of Appeal 16-09-2009 SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO RUSSIAN COMPANIES – REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET AND SUPPLEMENT APPLICABLE LAW (RUSSIAN LAW). NOTION OF FORCE MAJEURE – REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 7.1.7 OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Russian Federation Second circuit Arbitrazh Court of Appeal 22-12-2009 SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO RUSSIAN COMPANIES - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS A MEANS OF INTERPRETING OR SUPPLEMENTING APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) SUPERVENING FINANCIAL CRISIS IMPEDING BUYER FROM PAYING THE PRICE - DOES NOT AMOUNT TO FORCE MAJEURE BECAUSE NOT AN UNAVOIDABLE EVENT - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 7.1.7 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Russian Federation Second circuit Arbitrazh Court of Appeal 29-01-2010 SERVICE CONTRACT FOR THE REPAIR OF PIPELINE - BETWEEN TWO RUSSIAN COMPANIES – REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET AND SUPPLEMENT APPLICABLE LAW (RUSSIAN LAW). NOTION OF FORCE MAJEURE – REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 7.1.7 OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Russian Federation Eighteenth circuit Arbitrazh Court of Appeal 05-08-2010 REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) CONTRACT OF LEASE - LOSS TO PROPERTY DUE TO FIRE - LESSEE ENTITLED TO DAMAGES FOR NON-PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT BY LESSOR - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 393 (1) OF RUSSIAN CIVIL CODE AND TO ARTICLE 7.4.1 OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES. | |
|
Russian Federation Fourth circuit Arbitrazh Court of Appeal 22-11-2010 SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN COMPANY AND CHINESE COMPANIES – REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET AND SUPPLEMENT APPLICABLE LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) FREEDOM OF CONTRACT – REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 1.1 OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Russian Federation Federal Arbitrazh Court of the Volgo-Vyatsky District 10-12-2010 ASSIGNMENT CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO RUSSIAN COMPANIES – REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET AND SUPPLEMENT APPLICABLE LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) NOTION OF FORCE MAJEURE – REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 7.1.7 OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Russian Federation Arbitrazh Court of Saint Petersburg and Leningrad area 29-04-2011 SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO RUSSIAN COMPANIES - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL AND FOREIGN LEGAL SOURCES TO SUPPLEMENT APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) IMPUTATION OF PAYMENTS - REFERENCE, AMONG OTHERS, TO ARTICLES 6.12 (1) OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AND 7:109 (4)OF PRINCIPLES OF EUROPEAN CONTRACT LAW | |
|
Russian Federation Arbitrazh Court of the Saha Republic (Yakutia) 06-09-2011 SERVICE CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO RUSSIAN PARTIES - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS A MEANS FOR INTERPRETING APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) GOODS STORED AT A RIVERPORT DESTROYED BY FIRE - FIRE NOT AMOUNTING TO FORCE MAJEURE AS IT COULD HAVE BEEN FORESEEN AND AVOIDED BY RIVER PORT AUTHORITY - REFERENCE TO APPLICABLE RUSSIAN LAW AND TO ARTICLE 7.1.7 OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES. | |
|
Russian Federation Federal Arbitrazh Court of the North-West district 12-12-2011 SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN COMPANY AND A GERMAN COMPANY - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO CONFIRM THE SOLUTION PROVIDED BY APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) RIGHT TO DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 7.4.1 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AND TO ARTICLES 45 AND 61 OF THE CISG IN SUPPORT OF ARTICLE 309 OF THE CIVIL CODE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION | |
|
Russian Federation Arbitrazh Court of Kaliningrad region 15-12-2011 SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN BUSINESS PERSON AND A RUSSIAN COMPANY - REFERENCE TO THE CISG AND TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) CLAIM FOR DAMAGES - REFERENCE TO ARTS. 45 AND 61 OF CISG AND 7.4.1 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES DEFINED AS THE MOST MODERN INTERNATIONAL APPROACHES TO THE MATTER | |
|
Russian Federation Supreme Commercial Court of Russian Federation 28-12-2011 TRANSPORT CONTRACT BETWEEN TWO RUSSIAN COMPANIES - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO SUPPLEMENT APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) DAMAGE TO GOODS IN COURSE OF TRANSPORTATION - CARRIER LIABLE FOR DAMAGES UNLESS IT PROVES THAT DAMAGE WAS CAUSE BY EVENT AMOUNTING TO FORCE MAJEURE AND THAT IT COULD NOT AVOID OR OVERCOME THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE FORCE MAJEURE - REFERENCE TO ART.796 RUSSIAN CIVIL CODE AND TO ART. 7.1.7(1) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Russian Federation Supreme Commercial Court of Russian Federation 03-05-2012 SERVICE CONTRACT BETWEEN TWO RUSSIAN COMPANIES - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET AND SUPPLEMENT APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) LOSS OF PROPERTY IN CUSTODY DUE TO A FIRE - EVENT AMOUNTING TO FORCE MAJEURE ONLY IF IT IS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE PARTY EITHER BECAUSE THAT PARTY COULD NOT FORESEE IT OR BECAUSE IT COULD NOT AVOID OR OVERCOME ITS CONSEQUENCES - REFERENCE TO ART. 401 RUSSIAN CIVIL CODE AND TO ART. 7.1.7(1) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Russian Federation Sixth circuit Arbitrazh Court of Appeal 05-06-2012 SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN COMPANY AND A CHINESE COMPANY - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS A MEANS FOR INTERPRETING APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) CONTRACT INDICATING DOCUMENTS NECESSARY FOR DELIVERY OF GOODS - CUSTOM AUTHORITY REQUESTING ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS AND IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH DOCUMENTS DETERMINING EX OFFICIO HIGHER PRICE FOR PAYMENT OF CUSTOM DUTIES PURPOSES THAN THAT AGREED BETWEEN THE PARTIES IN THEIR CONTRACT - CUSTOM AUTHORITY´S DETERMINATION ILLEGAL - REFERENCE TO ART. 65 OF THE CUSTOMS CODE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION AND TO ART. 1.1 OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Russian Federation Arbitrazh court of Kostroma region 25-07-2012 SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO RUSSIAN COMPANIES - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) DAMAGES - AMOUNT OF HARM NOT DETERMINABLE WITH CERTAINTY - DISCRETIONARY DETERIMNATION BY COURT - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 7.4.3 (3) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Russian Federation Second circuit Arbtrazh Court of Appeal 31-08-2012 SERVICE CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO RUSSIAN COMPANIES – REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET AND SUPPLEMENT APPLICABLE LAW (RUSSIAN LAW). NOTION OF FORCE MAJEURE – REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 7.1.7 OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Russian Federation Arbitrazh Court of Khabarovsk area 25-12-2012 SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN COMPANY AND AN HONG KONG COMPANY - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS MEANS FOR INTERPRETING APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) FREEDOM OF THE PARTIES TO AGREE ON THE PRICE - REFERENCE TO EXISTING RUSSIAN REGULATION, TO GATT AND TO ARTICLE 1.1 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Russian Federation Fourth circuit Arbitrazh Court of Appeal 08-04-2013 SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN RUSSIAN AND CHINESE COMPANIES - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS MEANS FOR INTERPRETING APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) PARTIES FREE TO DETERMINE CONTENT OF CONTRACT - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 1.1. UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Russian Federation Fourth circuit Arbitrazh Court of Appeal 12-07-2013 SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN COMPANY AND A CHINESE COMPANY - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED AS MEANS FOR INTERPRETING DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED TOGETHER WITH ARTICLE 58 (1) OF THE CISG FREEDOM OF CONTRACT - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 1.1. OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Russian Federation Arbitrazh court of Kostroma region 29-07-2013 DISPUTE BETWEEN TWO RUSSIAN PARTIES - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET AND SUPPLEMENT THE APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) DETERMINATION OF AMOUNT OF DAMAGES WITH A SUFFICIENT DEGREE OF CERTAINTY NOT POSSIBLE - COURT EMPOWERED TO MAKE EQUITABLE QUANTIFICATION OF HARM SUSTANIED - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 7.4.3(3) OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Russian Federation Supreme Commercial Court of Russian Federation 01-08-2013 SUPPLY CONTRACT BETWEEN A GERMAN COMPANY AND A RUSSIAN COMPANY - REFERENCE TO THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN SUPPORT OF SOLUTION ADOPTED UNDER APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) CONTRACT NOT EXPRESSLY SPECIFYING COUNTRY OF ORIGIN OF GOODS - SELLER UNDER DUTY TO PROVIDE REASONABLE INFORMATION ABOUT ORIGIN OF GOODS DELIVERED - REFERENCE TO THE PRINCIPLE OF GOOD FAITH AS LAID DOWN IN ART.304 OF THE RUSSIAN CIVIL CODE AND IN ART. 1.7 (1) OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Russian Federation Arbitrazh Court of Trans-Baikal Territory 12-09-2013 SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN COMPANY AND A CHINESE COMPANY - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED AS MEANS FOR INTERPRETING DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED TOGETHER WITH ARTICLE 58(1) OF THE CISG FREEDOM OF CONTRACT - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 1.1. OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Russian Federation Fourth circuit Arbitrazh Court of Appeal 20-11-2013 SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN COMPANY AND A CHINESE COMPANY - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED AS MEANS FOR INTERPRETING DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED TOGETHER WITH ARTICLE 58(1) CISG FREEDOM TO ENTER INTO AND DETERMINE THE CONTENT OF THE CONTRACT - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 1.1. OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Russian Federation Arbitrazh Court of Sakhalin Region 02-12-2013 SERVICE CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN STATE-OWNED COMPANY AND ANOTHER RUSSIAN COMPANY - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED AS MEANS FOR INTERPRETING APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) FORCE MAJEURE - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 401 OF THE CIVIL CODE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION AND TO ARTICLE 7.1.7 OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES ON INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS | |
|
Russian Federation Arbitrazh Court of Novosibirsk region 12-12-2013 DISPUTE BETWEEN TWO RUSSIAN PARTIES - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS MEANS FOR INTERPRETING AND SUPPLEMENTING APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 1.8 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES STATING THE PROHIBITION OF INCONSISTENT BEHAVIOUR WHICH IS OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW | |
|
Russian Federation Fourth circuit Arbitrazh Court of Appeal 23-12-2013 SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN COMPANY AND A CHINESE COMPANY - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED AS MEANS FOR INTERPRETING DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED TOGETHER WITH ARTICLE 58(1) CISG FREEDOM TO ENTER INTO AND DETERMINE THE CONTENT OF THE CONTRACT - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 1.1. OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Russian Federation Arbitrazh Court of Trans-Baikal Territory 27-12-2013 SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN COMPANY AND A CHINESE COMPANY - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED AS MEANS FOR INTERPRETING DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED TOGETHER WITH ARTICLE 58(1) CISG FREEDOM TO ENTER INTO AND DETERMINE THE CONTENT OF THE CONTRACT - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 1.1. OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Russian Federation Arbitrazh Court of Moscow 15-01-2014 LOAN AGREEMENT - BETWEEN A LIECHTENSTEIN COMPANY AND A RUSSIAN COMPANY - CONTAINING A CHOICE OF LAW CLAUSE IN FAVOUR OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AND, FOR ISSUES NOT COVERED BY THE PRINCIPLES, IN FAVOUR OF RUSSIAN LAW | |
|
Russian Federation Fifteenth circuit Arbitrazh Court of Appeal 21-01-2014 SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN COMPANY AND A SPANISH COMPANY - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED AS MEANS FOR INTERPRETING DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) FREEDOM TO ENTER INTO AND DETERMINE THE CONTENT OF THE CONTRACT - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 1.1. OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL CONTRACTS AND TO ARTICLE 432 OF THE CIVIL CODE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION. | |
|
Russian Federation Fourth circuit Arbitrazh Court of Appeal 31-01-2014 SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN COMPANY AND A CHINESE COMPANY - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED AS MEANS FOR INTERPRETING DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED TOGETHER WITH ARTICLE 58(1) CISG FREEDOM TO ENTER INTO AND DETERMINE THE CONTENT OF THE CONTRACT - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 1.1. OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Russian Federation Fifteenth circuit Arbitrazh Court of Appeal 05-02-2014 SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN COMPANY AND A TURKISH COMPANY - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED AS MEANS FOR INTERPRETING DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) FREEDOM OF CONTRACT - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 1.1. OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AND TO ART. 432 OF THE CIVIL CODE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION | |
|
Russian Federation Fourth circuit Arbitrazh Court of Appeal 14-02-2014 SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN COMPANY AND A CHINESE COMPANY - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED AS MEANS FOR INTERPRETING DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED TOGETHER WITH ARTICLE 58(1) CISG FREEDOM TO ENTER INTO AND DETERMINE THE CONTENT OF THE CONTRACT - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 1.1. OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Russian Federation Fourth circuit Arbitrazh Court of Appeal 11-03-2014 SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN COMPANY AND A CHINESE COMPANY - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED AS MEANS FOR INTERPRETING DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED TOGETHER WITH ARTICLE 58(1) CISG FREEDOM TO ENTER INTO AND DETERMINE THE CONTENT OF THE CONTRACT - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 1.1. OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Russian Federation Russian Supreme Commercial Court 08-04-2014 LONG-TERMS CONTRACTS - AGENCY CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO RUSSIAN COMPANIES - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO SUPPLEMENT THE APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) AGENCY CONTRACT - KIND OF OBLIGATION OF AGENT - WHETHER DUTY TO ACHIEVE A SPECIFIC RESULT OR DUTY OF BEST EFFORTS - CRITERIA TO BE ADOPTED TO DETERMINE KIND OF OBLIGATION OF AGENT THOSE LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 5.1.4 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Russian Federation Arbitrazh court of Kostroma region 23-05-2014 ADMINISTRATIVE CONTRACTS - SERVICE CONTRACT - BETWEEN RUSSIAN INDIVIDUAL AND RUSSIAN MUNICIPALITY - REFERENCE TO THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET OR SUPPLEMENT APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) DAMAGES - AMOUNT CANNOT BE ESTABLISHED WITH A SUFFICIENT DEGREE OF CERTAINTY - EQUITABLE QUANTIFICATION OF DAMAGES - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 7.4.3(3) OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Russian Federation Arbitrazh Court of Sakhalin region 26-05-2014 ADMINISTRATIVE CONTRACTS - CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN LOCAL AUTHORITY AND A RUSSIAN COMPANY - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS MEANS FOR INTERPRETING APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM - PERFORMANCE DELAYED DUE TO A FLOOD OF THE RIVER - FORCE MAJEURE EXCLUDED BECAUSE THIS EVNET COULD HAVE BEEN FORESEEN BY PARTY - REFERENCE TO APPLICABLE RUSSIAN DOMESTIC LAW AND TO ARTICLE 7.1.7 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES. | |
|
Russian Federation Supreme Court of the Russian Federation 02-07-2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN A RUSSIAN COMPANY AND A RUSSIAN PUBLIC ENTITY - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN SUPPORT OF SOLUTION ADOPTED UNDER APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) QUESTION AS TO WHETHER TIME OF PERFORMANCE FIXED IN THE CONTRACT INCLUDED ALSO THE TIME FOR THE STATE INSPECTION OF THE WORKS. APPLICATION OF CONTRA PROFERENTEM RULE AS RECOGNISED BY RUSSIAN CASE LAW AS WELL AS BY ARTICLE 4.6 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Russian Federation Commercial Court of the North Caucasus District of the Russian Federation 03-09-2015 SERVICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO RUSSIAN COMPANIES - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN SUPPORT OF SOLUTION ADOPTED UNDER APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) SERVICE AGREEMENT - OBLIGATIONS OF SERVICE PROVIDER - DUTY OF BEST EFFORTS - REFERENCE TO RUSSIAN LEGISLATION AND TO ART. 5.1.4 (2)UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Russian Federation Ninth circuit Arbitrazh Court of Appeal 26-01-2016 STORAGE SERVICE CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO RUSSIAN PARTIES - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) FORCE MAJEURE AS UNFORESEEABLE AND UNAVOIDABLE EVENT - FIRE IN THE WAREHOUSE DESTROYING GOODS - OBLIGOR NOT EXEMPTED IF DOES NOT PROVE THAT OUTBREAK OF FIRE I WAS UNFORESEEABLE AND UNAVOIDABLE - REFERENCE TO ART. 7.1.7 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Russian Federation Ninth circuit Arbitrazh Court of Appeal 23-06-2016 BANK GUARANTEE - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN BANK AND A RUSSIAN COMPANY - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) INTERPRETATION OF BANK GUARANTEE - UNCLEAR TERMS - TO BE INTERPRETED AGAINST PARTY THAT HAD SUPPLIED THAT TERMS (CONTRA PROFERENTEM RULE) - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 4.6 OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Russian Federation Sverdlovsk District Court 18-10-2017 SERVICE CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO RUSSIAN INDIVIDUALS - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO CONFIRM THAT SOLUTION PROVIDED BY APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LA (RUSSIAN LAW) IS IN CONFORMITY WITH INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS CONTRACT FOR KEEPING PLAINTIFF´S HORSE IN DEFENDANT´S STABLE - HORSE´S EYES INJURED BY COMBING ITS HEAD WITH STRAW BEDDING - PLAINTIFF CLAIMING DAMAGES BUT DEFENDANT INVOKES CIRCUMSTANCES OF FORCE MAJEURE - NOTION OF FORCE MAJEURE - EVENT MUST BE UNFORESEEABLE AND UNAVOIDABLE - REFERENCE TO ART. 401(3) OF RUSSIAN CIVIL CODE AND TO ART. 7.1.7 OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLE - DEFENDANT´S EXEMPTION DENIED BECAUSE INJURY COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED IF HE HAD TAKEN ADEQUATE PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES TO PROTECT HORSE´S EYES | |
|
Russian Federation Commercial Court of the Moscow Region 28-12-2017 BANK GUARANTEE - ISSUED BY A RUSSIAN BANK IN FAVOUR OF A RUSSIAN BENEFICIARY- REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN SUPPORT OF SOLUTION FOUND UNDER APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) BANK GUARANTEE CONTAINING REFERENCE TO UNDERLYING CONTRACT - REFERENCE DOES NOT ALTER INDEPENDENCE OF GUARANTEE FROM UNDERLYING CONTRACT AS STATED BY ART. 370 OF THE RUSSIAN CIVIL CODE - REFERENCE ALSO TOE ARTICLE 4.6 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES (PRESUMABLY) SINCE BANK GUARANTEE WAS DRAFTED BY BANK | |
|
Uzbekistan The Judicial Chamber for Economic Cases, Tashkent 12-02-2021 SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN SELLER AND A UZBEK BUYER - GOVERNED BY CISG, THE INCOTERMS 2010, THE NATIONAL LAW ESTABLISHED UNDER THE PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL RULES OF THE FORUM [RUSSIAN LAW] AND, IN CASES WHERE IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO FIND THE RELEVANT APPLICABLE LAW, THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES BUYER'S OBLIGATION TO PAY THE PRICE (ART. 53 CISG) | |
| SAUDI LAW | 1 |
| SCOTTISH LAW | 1 |
| SERBIAN LAW | 1 |
| SINGAPOREAN LAW | 3 |
| SPANISH LAW | 30 |
| SWEDISH LAW | 5 |
| SWISS LAW | 14 |
| TURKISH LAW | 1 |
| TURKMEN LAW | 1 |
| UKRAINIAN LAW | 20 |
| URUGUAYAN LAW | 3 |
BY INTERNATIONAL LAW INVOLVED
|
Arbitral Award ICC International Court of Arbitration, Paris 7365/FMS 05-05-1997 STATE CONTRACTS - CONTRACT FOR THE SUPPLY AND INSTALLATION OF MILITARY EQUIPMENT - BETWEEN A UNITED STATES CORPORATION AND THE IRANIAN AIR FORCE - PARTIES' CHOICE OF DOMESTIC LAW (IRANIAN LAW) - AGREEMENT BY PARTIES AS TO COMPLEMENTARY AND SUPPLEMENTARY APPLICATION OF THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND TRADE USAGES - ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO DETERMINE CONTENT OF SUCH GENERAL PRINCIPLES HARDSHIP - RIGHT TO DEMAND TERMINATION OR ADAPTATION OF CONTRACT (ART. 6.2.3(4) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES) IMPLIED OBLIGATIONS - GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING (ARTS. 5.1 AND 5.2 [ARTS. 5.1.1 AND 5.1.2 OF THE 2004 EDITION] UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES) TERMINATION - RIGHT TO RESTITUTION (ART. 7.3.6 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES) INTEREST - RIGHT TO INTEREST INDEPENDENT OF A FORMAL REQUEST BY AGGRIEVED PARTY (ART. 7.4.9 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES) - DOUBTFUL WHETHER THIS PROVISION CORRESPONDS TO GENERALLY ACCEPTED PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW |
|
Arbitral Award ICC International Court of Arbitration 12111 06-01-2003 SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUMANIAN COMPANY AND AN ENGLISH COMPANY - REFERRING TO "INTERNATIONAL LAW" AS THE LAW GOVERNING THE CONTRACT - TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS REFERENCE TO THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW AND THE LEX MERCATORIA - APPLICATION OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES (PARAGRAPH 3 OF THE PREAMBLE OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES) PRINCIPLES OF EUROPEAN CONTRACT LAW - ACADEMIC EXERCISE PRELIMINARY TO A EUROPEAN CIVIL CODE - AS SUCH NOT YET APPLICABLE TO INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS |
|
Arbitral Award Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce 29-03-2005 STATE CONTRACTS - LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - GAS SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN A GIBRALTAR COMPANY AND A KYRGYZ STATE OWNED COMPANY - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED AS A RULE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW BUYER'S FAILURE TO PAY THE PRICE DUE TO INSOLVENCY CAUSED BY INTERFERENCE BY ITS COUNTRY'S GOVERNMENT - GOVERNMENT LIABLE FOR DAMAGES VIS-A-VIS SELLER INTEREST - TO BE CALCULATED ON THE BASIS OF INTERNATIONAL RULES - APPLICATION OF ART. 7.4.9 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES CONSIDERED BY ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL "TO BE AN APPROPRIATE BASIS FOR DETERMINING THE INTEREST" |
|
Arbitral Award Ad hoc Arbitration, Brussels 19-08-2005 STATE CONTRACTS - SHARE PURCHASE AGREEMENT - BETWEEN A DUTCH COMPANY AND THE POLISH GOVERNMENT - TO BE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF THE BILATERAL TREATY FOR THE PROTECTION OF INVESTMENTS AND "THE UNIVERSALLY ACKNOWLEDGED RULES AND PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW" - REFERENCE TO THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES |
|
Arbitral Award ICC International Court of Arbitration 14581 00-06-2007 STATE CONTRACTS - SUPPLY CONTRACT FOR LEASING EQUIPMENT AND LICENSING TECHNOLOGY - BETWEEN TWO MINISTRIES OF STATE X AND A COMPANY OF STATE Y - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS AN "EXPRESSION OF INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNISED PRINCIPLES" ARBITRATION CLAUSE PROVIDING THAT DISPUTES TO BE DECIDED BY "THE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION COURT IN SWITZERLAND" AND "IN ACCORDANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW" - INTERPRETATION OF AMBIGUOUS CLAUSE ACCORDING TO SWISS LAW AS LAW OF SEAT OF ARBITRATION AND ACCORDING TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES INVOKED BY PARTES AS "EXPRESSION OF INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNISED PRINCIPLES", TOGETHER WITH EUROPEAN PRINCIPLES OF CONTRACT LAW AND CISG - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 4.2 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN SUPPORT OF SIMILAR PROVISION IN SWISS LAW |
|
Arbitral Award Eritrea Ethiopia Claims Commission 17-08-2009 ERITREA ETHIOPIA CLAIMS COMMISSION - DAMAGES CLAIMS - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE INTERNATIONAL LAW DETERMINATION OF COMPENSATION FOR UNCERTAIN LOSSES - ASSESSMENT AT DISCRETION OF ADJUDICATING BODY - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 7.4.3(3) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES |
|
Arbitral Award Ad hoc Arbitration, The Hague 30-03-2010 STATE CONTRACTS - LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - EXPLORATION AND EXPLOITATION AGREEMENT - BETWEEN TWO UNITED STATES COMPANIES AND THE ECUADORIAN GOVERNMENT – REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL LAW AS WELL AS ECUADORIAN LAW) LOSS OF A CHANCE – CRITERION FOR DETERMINING AMOUNT OF DAMAGES IN CASE OF BREACH OF THE BIT DUE TO DENIAL OF JUSTICE – REFERENCE BY ONE OF THE PARTIES TO ARTICLE 7.4.3(2) OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES – ACCORDING TO ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL ONLY ADMISSIBLE WHERE AMOUNT OF LOSS NOT DETERMINABLE – REFERENCE TO COMMENT 2 TO ARTICLE 7.4.3 OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES FORCE MAJEURE – HARDSHIP – DISTRIBUTION BETWEEN THE PARTIES IN A JUST AND EQUITABLE MANNER OF THE LOSSES AND GAINS RESULTING FROM UNFORESEEABLE EVENT – REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES (COMMENT ARTICLES 7.1.7 AND TO ARTICLES 6.2.2 – 6.2.3(2)) AND TO PRINCIPLES OF EUROPEAN CONTRACT LAW (ARTICLE 6:111(3)(B)) AS A MEANS TO INTERPRET ECUADORIAN LAW (ARTICLE 1563 ECUADORIAN CIVIL CODE) |
|
Arbitral Award ICC International Court of Arbitration 17146 00-00-2013 INTERNATIONAL CONTRACT - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET AND SUPPLEMENT APPLICABLE INTERNATIONAL LAW (TRANSNATIONAL RULES AND TRADE USAGES) ARBITRATION CLAUSE - INTERPRETATION - ACCORDING TO PRINCIPLE OF GOOD FAITH, OF EFFECTIVE INTERPRETATION AND OF CONTRA PROFERENTEM RULE - REFERENCE TO ART. 4.5 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES |
|
Arbitral Award Permanent Court of Arbitration 04-06-2014 DISPUTE BETWEEN AN AUSTRIAN COMPANY AND THE SLOVAKIAN GOVERNMENT - CONCERNING MEASURES ADOPTED BY THE LATTER NEGATIVELY AFFECTING FOREIGN INVESTMENTS IN THE HEALTH INSURANCE SECTOR - ALLEGED VIOLATION BY SLOVAKIA OF BILATERAL INVESTMENT TREATIES - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO SUPPLEMENT APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL LAW) JURISDICTION OF ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL CHALLENGED ON THE GROUND THAT CLAIMANT INITIATED COURT PROCEEDINGS IN THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC THAT WERE PREDICATED ON THE SAME FACTS AND LEGAL BASIS AND SOUGHT THE SAME RELIEF AS IN THE ARBITRAL PROCEEDING IMPLIED AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT THE CASE SHOULD BE RESOLVED IN THE NATIONAL COURTS, NOT IN THE ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS – REFERENCE BY BOTH PARTIES TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES (ARTS. 1.2, 2.1.2, 2.1.11, 3.2.12, 4.1 AND 4.2) – ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL AGREES WITH CLAIMANT THAT NO SUCH AGREEMENT WAS CONCLUDED WAIVER OF THE RIGHT TO ARBITRATE – REFERENCE BY BOTH PARTIES TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES – ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL CONFIRMS THAT CLAIMANT HAS WAIVED ITS RIGHT TO ARBITRATE SINCE THE PROCEEDING BEFORE NATIONAL COURTS COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ONLY AS A PRECAUTIONARY MEASURE |
|
Arbitral Award International Arbitration Court of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation 03-04-2018 SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN BUYER AND A UKRAINIAN SELLER - CHOICE OF LAW CLAUSE REFERRING TO "INTERNATIONAL LAW" - ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL DECIDED TO APPLY CISG AND, FOR QUESTIONS NOT PROVIDED FOR IN THE CISG, THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES SINCE THE PARTIES EXPRESS THEIR INTENTION TO EXCLUDE THE APPLICATION OF ANY NATIONAL LAW RIGHT TO INTEREST - REFERENCE TO ART. 7.4.9 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE INTEREST RATE |
|
Arbitral Award Permanent Court of Arbitration 10-01-2019 STATE CONTRACTS - LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - CONCESSION CONTRACT - BETWEEN UNITED STATES INVESTORS AND THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT – BREACH OF THE LATTER OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE NORTH AMERICA FREE TRADE AGREEMENT (NAFTA) - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN SUPPORT OF GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF A CHANCE - RIGHT TO COMPENSATION - REFERENCE TO ART. 7.4.3 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES DAMAGES – COMPENSATION FOR FUTURE HARM DUE WHEN THERE IS A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY FOR SUCCESS – REFERENCE TO ART. 7.4.3 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES |
|
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) 04-06-2004 STATE CONTRACTS - LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - BUILD-OPERATE-TRANSFER (BOT) CONTRACT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICITY PLANT IN TURKEY - BETWEEN A UNITED STATES-TURKISH CONSORTIUM AND THE TURKISH GOVERNMENT - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL LAW) CONTRACT WITH ESSENTIAL TERMS DELIBERATELY LEFT OPEN AND TO BE AGREED UPON AT LATER DATE - CONTRACT VALID IF PARTIES INTENDED TO BE BOUND BY THE CONTRACT - REFERENCE BY CLAIMANT TO ART. 2.14 (NOW 2.1.14) OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES- ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL CONFIRMED |
|
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) 19-01-2007 STATE CONTRACTS - LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - CONCESSION CONTRACT - BETWEEN A UNITED STATES-TURKISH CONSORTIUM AND THE TURKISH GOVERNMENT - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL LAW) CONCESSION CONTRACT CONCLUDED WITH TERMS LEFT OPEN - ONE PARTY ARGUED THAT NEVERTHELESS CONTRACT HAD BEEN VALIDLY CONCLUDED INVOKING ARTICLE 2.1.14 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN SUPPORT THEREOF - ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL BASICALLY CONFIRMS ONE PARTY ARGUED THAT DUTY TO NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH DOES NOT ENTAIL OBLIGATION TO REACH AGREEMENT INVOKING ARTICLE 2.1.15 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES - ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL BASICALLY CONFIRMS |
|
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) 01-09-2009 APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT OF AN ICSID AWARD RENDERED BETWEEN A UNITED STATES CORPORATION AND THE ARGENTINIAN GOVERNMENT - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL LAW) DETERMINATION OF EXTENT OF HARM - DISCRETIONARY POWER OF COURTS WHERE AMOUNT CANNOT BE ESTABLISHED WITH SUFFICIENT DEGREE OF CERTAINTY - REFERENCE BY CLAIMANT TO ARTICLE 7.4.3 (3) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES - STANDARD OF COMPENSATION CONFIRMED BY BOTH ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL AND AD HOC COMMITTEE |
|
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) 14-01-2010 STATE CONTRACTS – SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - BETWEEN A UNITED STATES NATIONAL AND THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT - REFERRING TO ARTICLE 54 OF THE ICSID ADDITIONAL FACILITY ARBITRATION RULES RECORDED AS TO THE APPLICABLE LAW - APPLICATION BY ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS "A PRIVATE CODIFICATION OF CIVIL LAW, APPROVED BY AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL INSTITUTION WHICH ARE NEITHER TREATY, NOR COMPILATION OF USAGES, NOR STANDARD TERMS OF CONTRACT BUT IN FACT ARE A MANIFESTATION OF TRANSNATIONAL LAW" - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL LAW) CONTRACT INTERPRETATION - ACCORDING TO COMMON INTENTION OF PARTIES - RELEVANCE OF PRELIMINARY NEGOTIATIONS - REFERENCE TO ARTICLES 4.1 AND 4.3 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES MERGER CLAUSE - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 2.1.17 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES INCONSISTENT BEHAVIOUR - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 1.8 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES DUTY TO USE BEST EFFORTS - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 5.1.4 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES |
|
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) 03-03-2010 STATE CONTRACTS - LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - CONCESSION AGREEMENT -BETWEEN GREEK AND ISRAELI INVESTORS AND THE GEORGIAN GOVERNMENT - CONCERNING THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF OIL PIPELINES - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL LAW) DISPUTE BETWEEN PARTIES AS TO SCOPE OF THE CONCESSION - WHETHER EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUING THE CONCESSION AGREEMENT - REFERENCE BY ONE OF THE PARTIES TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN SUPPORT OF ADMISSIBILITY - ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL, THOUGH WITHOUT EXPRESSLY REFERRING TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES, BASICALLY CONCURRED |
|
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) 16-06-2010 STATE CONTRACTS - LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - CONCESSION CONTRACT - BETWEEN FRENCH AND ARGENTINIAN COMPANIES AND THE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT – BIT AND GENERAL INTERNATIONAL LAW APPLICABLE - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN SUPPORT OF GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW DAMAGES – COMPENSATION DUE ONLY FOR HARM, INCLUDING FUTURE HARM, ESTABLISHED WITH REASONABLE DEGREE OF CERTAINTY – REFERENCE TO ART. 36 ILC DRAFT ARTICLES ON RESPONSIBILITY OF STATES FOR INTERNATIONALLY WRONGFUL ACTS OF 2001 AND TO ART. 7.4.3 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES |
|
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) 28-03-2011 STATE CONTRACTS – SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - BETWEEN A UNITED STATES NATIONAL AND THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT - ALLEGED BREACH OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - APPLICATION BY ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS "A PRIVATE CODIFICATION OF CIVIL LAW, APPROVED BY AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL INSTITUTION WHICH ARE NEITHER TREATY, NOR COMPILATION OF USAGES, NOR STANDARD TERMS OF CONTRACT BUT IN FACT ARE A MANIFESTATION OF TRANSNATIONAL LAW" - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO SUPPLEMENT APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL LAW) DAMAGES FOR LOST PROFITS - TO BE DISTINGUISHED FROM DAMAGES FOR SIMPLE LOSS OF A CHANCE - REFERENCE TO THE EXAMPLE IN COMMENT 2 TO ART. 7.4.3 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES INCONSISTENT BEHAVIOUR - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 1.8 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES |
|
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) 12-05-2011 DISPUTE BETWEEN A SWISS COMPANY AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC - CONCERNING MEASURES ADOPTED BY THE LATTER NEGATIVELY AFFECTING FOREIGN INVESTMENTS IN THE TOBACCO SECTOR - ICSID ARBITRATION CLAUSE CONTAINED IN A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (PROTOCOL OF AGREEMENT) CONCLUDED BETWEEN THE PARTIES - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL LAW) JURISDICTION OF ICSID ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL CHALLENGED ON THE GROUND THAT AGREEMENT CONTAINING THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE WAS NULL AND VOID - LACK OF PRIOR APPROVAL BY THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE - RESPONDENT CANNOT INVOKE THE VIOLATION OF ITS LOCAL LAW TO CONSIDER ITS CONSENT TO ARBITRATION VITIATED OR NULL SEVERABILITY OF THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE - CLAIMANT INVOKING ART. 3.16 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES ON PARTIAL AVOIDANCE [NOW ART. 3.2.13] - ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL CONCURS |
|
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) 31-10-2011 DISPUTE BETWEEN A UNITED STATES INVESTOR AND THE ARGENTINIAN GOVERNMENT - CONCERNING ALLEGED VIOLATION BY THE LATTER OF BILATERAL INVESTMENT TREATY (BIT) - ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL DECIDED TO APPLY THE BIT AND "INTERNATIONAL LAW, WHEN APPLICABLE" - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES "A SORT OF INTERNATIONAL RESTATEMENT OF THE LAW OF CONTRACTS REFLECTING RULES AND PRINCIPLES APPLIED BY THE MAJORITY OF NATIONAL LEGAL SYSTEMS". DEFENDANT INVOKING FORCE MAJEURE AS EXCUSE FOR VIOLATION OF BIT - OBJECTION REJECTED ON GROUND OF GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF "PRECLUSION OF WRONGFULNESS" - REFERENCE TO ARTICLES 6.2.2, 7.1.6 AND 7.1.7 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES |
|
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) 01-06-2012 DISPUTE BETWEEN A UNITED STATES COMPANY AND THE SALVADORAN GOVERNMENT OVER THE LATTER'S ARBITRARY REFUSAL TO GRANT THE FORMER A MINING EXPLOITATION CONCESSION - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL LAW) JURISDICTION OF ICSID ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL CHALLENGED ON THE GROUND THAT DISPUTE HAD ARISEN WHEN CLAIMANT WAS NOT YET A UNITED STATES COMPANY BREACH OF AN OBLIGATION UNDER INVESTMENT TREATY BY OMISSION - EXPLICIT REFUSAL TO GRANT CONCESSION NOT NECESSARY - MERE FAILURE TO RESPOND TO APPLICATION SUFFICIENT - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 7.1.1 UNDIROIT PRINCIPLES |
|
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) 18-04-2017 STATE CONTRACTS – SHARE PURCHASE AGREEMENT - BETWEEN TWO ITALIAN NATIONALS AND THE ROMANIAN GOVERNMENT - ALLEGED VIOLATION BY THE LATTER OF BILATERAL INVESTMENT TREATY - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL LAW) COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF OPPORTUNITY - CAN BE AWARDED ON THE BASIS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW - REFERENCE TO ART. 7.4.3 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES DETERMINATION OF EXTENT OF HARM - DISCRETIONARY POWER OF COURTS WHERE AMOUNT CANNOT BE ESTABLISHED WITH SUFFICIENT DEGREE OF CERTAINTY - IN CASE OF LOSS OF OPPORTUNITY MUST BE TAKEN IN CONSIDERATION THE PROBABILITY OF THE CHANCE COMING TO FRUITION - REFERENCE TO THE EXAMPLE IN COMMENT 2 TO ART. 7.4.3 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES |
|
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) 30-10-2017 STATE CONTRACTS – LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO SWISS COMPANIES AND THE VENEZUELAN GOVERNMENT - ALLEGED VIOLATION BY THE LATTER OF BILATERAL INVESTMENT TREATY - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL LAW) DETERMINATION OF EXTENT OF HARM - DISSENTING OPINION OF ONE OF THE ARBITRATORS - COMPENSATION ONLY FOR FORESEEABLE HARM - REFERENCE TO ART. 7.4.4 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AND ART. 74 CISG DETERMINATION OF EXTENT OF HARM - DISSENTING OPINION OF ONE OF THE ARBITRATORS - LOSS OF PROFITS CALCULATED AS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CONTRACT PRICE AND THE PRICE PAID BY THE BUYER FOR REPLACEMENT GOODS OR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CONTRACT PRICE AND THE MARKET PRICE AT THE TIME DELIVERIES SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE IF REPLACEMENT GOODS ARE NOT PURCHASED - REFERENCE TO ARTS. 7.4.5-7.4.6 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AND ART. 75-76 CISG |
|
Iranian-U.S. Arbitral Tribunal Iranian-U.S. Arbitral Tribunal (Full Tribunal) 02-07-2014 DISPUTE BETWEEN IRAN AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CONCERNING ALLEGED BREACH BY UNITED STATES OF ITS OBLIGATION UNDER ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 2, OF THE 1981 CLAIMS SETTLEMENT DECLARATION ESTABLISHING THE IRAN-UNITED STATES CLAIMS TRIBUNAL – ACCORDING TO ARTICLE V OF THE 1981 CLAIMS SETTLEMENT DECLARATION TRIBUNAL BOUND TO “DECIDE ALL CASES ON THE BASIS OF RESPECT FOR LAW, APPLYING SUCH CHOICE OF LAW RULES AND PRINCIPLES OF COMMERCIAL AND INTERNATIONAL LAW AS THE TRIBUNAL DETERMINES TO BE APPLICABLE, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT RELEVANT USAGES OF TRADE, CONTRACT PROVISIONS AND CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES” UNITED STATES ORDERED TO PAY IRAN DAMAGES PLUS INTEREST – INTEREST CALCULATED “AT AN ANNUAL RATE EQUAL TO THE AVERAGE PRIME BANK LENDING RATE IN THE UNITED STATES” – TRIBUNAL SO DECIDED “[…] ALSO MINDFUL OF ARTICLE 7.4.9 (2) OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES 2010” |
|
Netherlands Gerechtshof Den Haag 11-09-2013 STATE CONTRACTS - SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN AN ENGLISH COMPANY AND AN IRANIAN GOVERNMENT AGENCY - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE LAW (INTERNATIONAL LAW) REQUEST FOR SETTING ASIDE OF ARBITRAL AWARDS APPLYING THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS RULES OF LAW GOVERNING THE SUBSTANCE OF THE DISPUTE - REQUEST REJECTED BY COURT (DUTCH COURT) APPLICATION BY ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL ON ITS OWN MOTION OF ARTICLE 7.4.3(3) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES - OBJECTION THAT ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL HAD EXCEEDED ITS MANDATE - REJECTED LIMITATION PERIODS - A PARTY'S OBJECTION THAT OTHER PARTY'S CLAIMS WERE TIME-BARRED REJECTED BY ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL AS THE 1994 EDITION OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES DID NOT ADDRESS THE ISSUE LIMITATION PERIODS - ARGUMENT THAT THE ISSUE WAS ADDRESSED IN THE SUBSEQUENT 2004 EDITION OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES REJECTED - RETROACTIVE EFFECT OF SUBSEQUENT EDITIONS OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES DENIED |
|
Venezuela Civil Chamber of the Venezuelan Supreme Court 02-12-2014 CONTRACT BETWEEN A VENEZUELAN COMPANY AND A DUTCH COMPANY - SILENT AS TO APPLICABLE LAW - CONTRACT GOVERNED BY THE LAW WITH WHICH IT IS MOST DIRECTLY CONNECTED - TO BE DETERMINED ON THE BASIS, AMONG OTHERS, OF GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL LAW RECOGNIZED BY INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS (ART. 30 VENEZUELAN ACT ON PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW) - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES EXPRESSLY REFERRED TO AS AN EXAMPLE OF SUCH GENERAL PRINCIPLES |
|
Venezuela Civil Chamber of the Venezuelan Supreme Court 17-03-2023 BILL OF EXCHANGE - SIGNED BY VENEZUELAN INDIVIDUALS IN CURAÇAO – APPLICABLE LAW IN THE ABSENCE OF A CHOICE OF THE PARTIES – REFERENCE TO LEX MERCATORIA CONTAINED IN THE NATIONAL PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW - APPLICATION OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS AN EXPRESSION OF THE LEX MERCATORIA LAW APPLICABLE TO A BILL OF EXCHANGE - MONETARY OBLIGATION FOR WHICH THE PARTIES DID NOT CHOOSE THE APPLICABLE LAW - OBLIGATION SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF THE PLACE OF PERFORMANCE - OBLIGEE’S PLACE OF BUSINESS” AS THE PLACE OF PERFORMANCE (ART. 6.1.6[1][a] UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES). |