SELECTED CASES BY TYPE OF CONTRACT INVOLVED
SELECTED CASES BY NATIONALITY OF THE PARTIES
| KEYWORD | Count of Cases |
|---|---|
| AFRICAN | 6 |
| ALGERIAN | 1 |
| ARGENTINIAN | 14 |
| AUSTRALIAN | 17 |
| AUSTRIAN | 10 |
| BAHAMIAN | 1 |
| BELGIAN | 6 |
| BELORUSSIAN | 7 |
| BERMUDIAN | 1 |
| BRAZILIAN | 9 |
| BRITISH VIRGIN ISLAND | 1 |
| BULGARIAN | 1 |
| CANADIAN | 13 |
| CENTRAL EUROPEAN | 1 |
| CHILEAN | 4 |
| CHINESE | 43 |
|
Arbitral Award ICC International Court of Arbitration 10114 00-03-2000 LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - SERVICE CONTRACT - BETWEEN A CHINESE COMPANY AND AN EASTERN EUROPEAN CAR MANUFACTURER APPLICATION OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS EXPRESSION OF “INTERNATIONAL PRACTICES” | |
|
Arbitral Award Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce 00-00-2001 LONG TERM CONTRACTS - CONTRACT ON TECHNOLOGY EXCHANGE AND TECHNICAL COOPERATION - BETWEEN A EUROPEAN COMPANY AND TWO CHINESE COMPANIES - SILENT AS TO APPLICABLE LAW - INTERPRETED BY ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL AS INTENTION OF PARTIES TO EXCLUDE APPLICATION OF ANY DOMESTIC LAW - APPLICATION OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS "RULES OF LAW CONSIDERED TO BE MOST APPROPRIATE" IN CASE AT HAND (SEE ARTICLE 24(1) STOCKHOLM ARBITRATION RULES)- SUBSIDIARY APPLICATION OF SWEDISH LAW AS NEUTRAL LAW UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES DEFINED AS RULES "WHICH HAVE WIDE RECOGNITION AND SET OUT PRINCIPLES THAT OFFERS A PROTECTION FOR CONTRACTING PARTIES THAT ADEQUATELY REFLECTS THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF COMMERCIAL RELATIONS IN MOST IF NOT ALL DEVELOPED COUNTRIES" | |
|
Arbitral Award China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) 00-09-2004 SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN A SWISS SELLER AND A CHINESE BUYER – SILENT AS TO APPLICABLE LAW – CISG APPLICABLE AS PARTIES SITUATED IN TWO DIFFERENT CONTRACTING STATES – CISG NOT A “COMPLETE CODE” - TO BE APPLIED IN CONJUNCTION WITH OTHERWISE APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (IN THE CASE AT HAND CHINESE LAW AS CHINA BEING THE PLACE OF ARBITRATION) LIQUIDATED DAMAGES CLAUSES AND PENALTY CLAUSES NOT DEALT WITH BY CISG – GAP CANNOT BE FILLED BY REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 7.4.13 OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES – RECOURSE TO APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (ARTICLE 114 OF THE CHINESE CONTRACT LAW) DETERMINATION OF AMOUNT OF DAMAGES PAYABLE BY PARTY IN BREACH – REFERENCE TO ARTICLES 74 AND 76 CISG AND TO ARTICLE 7.4.6 OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Arbitral Award China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) 02-09-2005 SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN FRENCH SELLER AND CHINESE BUYER – CISG APPLICABLE ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 1(1)(A) CISG INTEREST ON DELAYED OR FAILED PAYMENT OF PRICE – ARTICLE 78 CISG SILENT AS TO APPLICABLE RATE – SELLER’S CLAIM TO APPLY RATE ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 7.4.9 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES “SINCE BOTH CHINA AND FRANCE ARE MEMBER STATES OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES” – ARGUMENT REJECTED BY ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL BECAUSE “THE PRINCIPLES ARE NEITHER AN INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION NOR DID THE PARTIES STIPULATE THE PRINCIPLES IN THE CONTRACT” – ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL NEVERTHELESS FREE “TO REFER TO THE PRINCIPLES” – INTEREST AWARDED ACCORDING TO SELLER’S ALLEGATION | |
|
Arbitral Award China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) 00-00-2007 SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN A CHINESE PARTY AND A KOREAN PARTY - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES QUALIFIED BY THE TRIBUNAL AS USAGES APPLICABLE TO THE EXTENT THAT THE ISSUES AT STAKE ARE NOT COVERED BY THE APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (CHINESE LAW) | |
|
Arbitral Award Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce 24-06-2008 SUPPLY/SALES CONTRACTS - BETWEEN A CHINESE COMPANY AND A GERMAN COMPANY - CHOICE OF LAW CLAUSE REFERRING TO "INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL LAW" - AFTER THE BEGINNING OF THE ARBITRAL PROCEEDINGS PARTIES AGREED THAT THIS INCLUDES CISG AND, TO SOME EXTENT, THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES SUBSEQUENT MODIFICATION OF THE CONTRACT BY FAX MESSAGES - VALIDLY CONCLUDED ACCORDING TO ART. 11 CISG AND ARTS. 1.2 AND 3.1.2 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES RIGHT TO INTEREST - REFERENCE TO ARTS. 74 AND 79 CISG AND ART. 7.4.9 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 ICC International Court of Arbitration 16816 00-00-2011 LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - PROJECT CONTRACT - BETWEEN A CHINESE PARTY AND A UNITED STATES PARTY - SILENT AS TO THE APPLICABLE LAW SOLE ARBITRATOR, HAVING FOUND THAT THE CONTRACT DID NOT INDICATE A GOVERNING LAW , THE PARTIES WERE FROM DIFFERENT JURISDICTIONS AND THE CONTRACT HAD TO BE PERFORMED IN DIFFERENT JURISDICTIONS, DECIDED TO APPLY THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 17 ICC ARBITRATION RULES - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE RULES OF LAW CONTRACT INTERPRETATION - PARTIES' INTENTIONS DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF THE LETTER, NATURE AND PURPOSE OF THE AGREEMENT AND THE PARTIES' CONDUCT (ART. 4.3 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES) - REFERENCE ALSO TO ARTS. 4.4 AND 4.5 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES PROJECT MANAGER'S FAILURE TO MEET CONTRACTUAL REQUIREMENTS AND EXPECTATIONS – CLIENT’S RIGHT TO SUSPEND CONTRACTUAL PAYMENTS - APPLICATION OF GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF A PARTY’S RIGHT TO WITHHOLD PERFORMANCE IN CASE OF NON-PERFORMANCE BY THE OTHER PARTY (ART. 7.1.3 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES) RIGHT TO WITHHOLD PERFORMANCE PENDING ADEQUATE ASSURANCE OF PERFORMANCE - RIGHT TO TERMINATE THE CONTRACT IN THE ABSENCE OF ADEQUATE ASSURANCE OF DUE PERFORMANCE - REFERENCE TO ART. 7.3.4 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES REQUEST FOR TERMINATION OF THE CONTRACT BY THE NON-PERFORMING PARTY - BEHAVIOR CONTRARY TO GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALINGS - REFERENCE TO ARTS. 1.7 AND 1.8 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF REPUTATION OF THE CLIENT - REFERENCE TO ART. 7.4.2(2) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES - DAMAGES NON-REFUNDABLE FAILING A DIRECT LINK BETWEEN THE LOSS OF SALES AND THE LOSS OF REPUTATION FOLLOWING FROM THE POOR PERFORMANCE OF THE PRODUCT SUPPLIED BY THE PROJECT MANAGER | |
|
Arbitral Award International Arbitration Court of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation 06-02-2013 SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN RUSSIAN COMPANY AND CHINESE COMPANY - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES APPLIED BY ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL AS LAW APPLICABLE TO SUBSTANCE OF DISPUTE ON ITS OWN MOTION FUNDS TRANSFER - TIME AT WHICH OBLIGOR'S OBLIGATION IS DISCHARGED - 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 China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) 31-10-2016 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT (rectius SUB-CONTRACT AGREEMENT OF ENGINEERING, PROCUREMENT AND CONSTRUCTION) - BETWEEN CHINESE AND INDONESIAN POWER PLANT ENGINEERING COMPANIES AND AN INDONESIAN ENGINEERING COMPANY - PARTIES´ CHOICE OF SINGAPORE LAW AS THE LAW GOVERNING THE AGREEMENT - WHEN DISPUTE AROSE NEITHER PARTY ABLE TO PROVE CONTENT OF SINGAPORE LAW WITH RESPECT TO ISSUES AT STAKE - ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL INVOKING ART. 49 (1) OF CIETAC ARBITRATION RULES 2015 APPLIES UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS LAW APPLICABLE TO SUBSTANCE OF DISPUTE NON - PERFORMANCE OF AGREEMENT - RIGHT OF AGGRIEVED PARTIES TO TERMINATE AGREEMENT AND TO CLAIM RESTITUTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTS. 7.3.1 AND 7.3.6 OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES - ASSESSMENT OF AMOUNT OF DAMAGES PURSUANT TO ART. 7.3.4 (3) OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES - AMOUNT REDUCED PURSUANT ART. 7.4.7 OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES SINCE HARM SUFFERED BY AGGRIEVED PARTIES IN PART DUE TO CONDUCT OF AGGRIEVED PARTIES | |
|
Arbitral Award Chinese European Arbitration Centre (CEAC) 30-04-2018 LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - EXCLUSIVE AGENCY CONTRACT - BETWEEN A CHINESE COMPANY (AGENT) AND A GERMAN COMPANY (PRINCIPAL) - PARTIES' CHOICE OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES 2016 AS THE LAW GOVERNING THEIR CONTRACT VIOLATION OF THE EXCLUSIVITY CLAUSE BY THE PRINCIPAL - BREACH OF CONTRACT - AGENT ENTITLED TO DAMAGES ACCORDING TO ART. 7.4.1 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES - REFERENCE BY THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL ALSO TO ARTS. 7.4.2 AND 7.4.3 UNIDROIT IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF SUCH DAMAGES | |
|
China Supreme People’s Court 00-00-0000 LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - LAND USE CONTRACT - BETWEEN A CHINESE BANK AND A CHINESE VILLAGE COMMITTEE - GOVERNED BY CHINESE LAW "COMMENTS" BY A CHINESE JUDGE ON COURT DECISIONS - NOT LEGALLY BINDING - TERMINATION OF CONTRACT FOR SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE ON HARDSHIP IN UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES 2004. | |
|
China Guangzhou Baiyun District People’s Court 27-08-2001 DISPUTE BETWEEN A CHINESE INDIVIDUAL AND A CHINESE RESTAURANT - GOVERNED BY CHINESE LAW "COMMENTS" BY CHINESE JUDGES ON THEIR DECISIONS - NOT LEGALLY BINDING - DECISION INVALIDATING A STANDARD TERM CONSIDERED TO BE UNFAIR - REFERENCE IN THE DISSENTING COMMENTS BY A JUDGE OF A HIGHER COURT TO ARTICLE 2.20 [ARTICLE 2.1.20 OF THE 2004 EDITION] OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
China Henan Luoyang Jianxi District People’s Court 00-00-2002 LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - LEASE CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO CHINESE COMPANIES - GOVERNED BY CHINESE LAW "COMMENTS" BY CHINESE JUDGES ON THEIR DECISIONS - NOT LEGALLY BINDING - DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES FOR FUNDAMENTAL BREACH - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES, CISG AND PRINCIPLES OF EUROPEAN CONTRACT LAW IN A "COMMENT" WRITTEN BY MEMBERS OF THE COURT | |
|
China Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court & Guangdong High People's Court 00-00-2002 MEDIATION AGREEMENT - BETWEEN TWO CHINESE COMPANIES - GOVERNED BY CHINESE LAW "COMMENT" BY CHINESE JUDGES ON THEIR DECISIONS - NOT LEGALLY BINDING - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 2.1.1 OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES [2004 EDITION] AND ARTICLE 18 OF CISG IN A "COMMENT" WRITTEN BY MEMBERS OF THE COURT | |
|
China Xiamen Intermediate People’s Court 14-12-2004 SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN A SWISS COMPANY AND A CHINESE COMPANY - CHOICE OF LAWS CLAUSE REFERRING TO CISG AND, FOR ISSUES NOT COVERED BY CISG, TO THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
China Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court; Guangdong High People's Court 00-00-2005 LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - BETWEEN TWO CHINESE COMPANIES - GOVERNED BY CHINESE LAW "COMMENTS" BY CHINESE JUDGES ON THEIR DECISIONS - NOT LEGALLY BINDING - DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES FOR FUNDAMENTAL BREACH - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 7.3.1 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES 2004 AND ARTICLE 25 CISG IN A "COMMENT" WRITTEN BY MEMBERS OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE | |
|
China Shaoguan Intermediate People’s Court 28-04-2005 LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - LEASE CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO CHINESE COMPANIES - GOVERNED BY CHINESE LAW - CONTRACT TERMINATED ON ACCOUNT OF HARDSHIP - REFERENCE TO RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
China Beijing Haidian District People’s Court 20-06-2005 LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - SALES AGENCY CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO CHINESE COMPANIES - GOVERNED BY CHINESE LAW "COMMENTS" BY CHINESE JUDGES ON THEIR DECISIONS - NOT LEGALLY BINDING - AVOIDANCE OF THE AGREEMENT FOR FRAUD - REFERENCE IN THE COMMENTS TO ARTICLE 3.11 OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
China Nanjing Gulou District People’s Court 00-00-2007 SERVICE CONTRACT - BETWEEN A CHINESE INDIVIDUAL AND A CHINESE COMPANY - GOVERNED BY CHINESE LAW "COMMENTS" BY A CHINESE JUDGE ON COURT DECISIONS - NOT LEGALLY BINDING – APPLICATION OF THE MITIGATION PRINCIPLE - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 7.4.8 IN UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES 1994. | |
|
China Beijing Haidian District People’s Court 28-06-2007 SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO CHINESE COMPANIES - GOVERNED BY CHINESE LAW 'COMMENTS' BY CHINESE JUDGES ON THEIR DECISIONS - NOT LEGALLY BINDING - SELLER’S RIGHT TO WITHHOLD PERFORMANCE IN CASE OF BUYER’S NON-PERFORMANCE - REFERENCE IN THE COMMENTS TO ARTICLE 7.1.3 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN A "COMMENT" CO-AUTHORED BY MEMBER OF THE COURT | |
|
China Supreme People’s Court 00-00-2008 CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN TWO CHINESE COMPANIES - GOVERNED BY CHINESE LAW "COMMENTS" BY CHINESE JUDGES ON DECISIONS - NOT LEGALLY BINDING – WHETHER THERE WAS CULPA IN CONTRAHENDO - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 2.1.15 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES 2004 IN A "COMMENT" WRITTEN BY JUDGES OF THE SUPREME PEOPLE’S COURT | |
|
China Beijing Haidian District People’s Court; First Intermediate People's Court of Beijin 00-00-2008 SERVICE CONTRACT - BETWEEN A CHINESE INDIVIDUAL AND A CHINESE HOTEL COMPANY - GOVERNED BY CHINESE LAW "COMMENTS" BY A CHINESE JUDGE ON COURT DECISION - NOT LEGALLY BINDING – WHETHER THERE WAS ANTICIPATORY BREACH OF CONTRACT - REFERENCE TO ARTICLES ON ANTICIPATORY BREACH OF CONTRACT IN UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES 2004 | |
|
China Chongqing Fuling District People’s Court 00-00-2009 SERVICE CONTRACT - BETWEEN CHINESE INDIVIDUALS - GOVERNED BY CHINESE LAW "COMMENTS" BY A CHINESE JUDGE ON COURT DECISIONS - NOT LEGALLY BINDING – COMPENSATION FOR MORAL DAMAGES AS A RESULT OF BREACH OF CONTRACT - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 7.4.2 IN UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES 1994. | |
|
China Shanghai High People’s Court 04-11-2010 DISPUTE BETWEEN TWO CHINESE INDIVIDUALS - REFERENCE BY ONE OF THE PARTIES TO THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES - CHINESE COURT CONFIRMING THE SOLUTION PROPOSED BY THE CLAIMANT EVEN IF WITHOUT CLEAR REFERENCE TO THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES LOSS OF A CHANCE - REFERENCE TO ART. 7.4.3 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN ORDER TO CONFIRM THE SOLUTION ADOPTED UNDER APPLICABLE CHINESE LAW | |
|
China Shaoguan Interm. People’s Court 05-09-2014 SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN A SWISS COMPANY AND A CHINESE COMPANY - CHOICE-OF-LAW CLAUSE IN FAVOUR OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES (2004 EDITION) | |
|
China Chongqing Wanzhou District People’s Court 00-00-2015 DISPUTE BETWEEN TWO CHINESE INDIVIDUALS - REFERENCE TO THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS A MEANS TO SUPPLEMENT APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW "COMMENTS" BY CHINESE JUDGES ON THEIR DECISIONS - NOT LEGALLY BINDING - OBJECTIVE TEST IN CASE OF THREAT - REFERENCE TO ART. 3.2.6 OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES - SOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES PREFERABLE OVER THE SUBJECTIVE TEST APPLIED IN CHINESE LAW | |
|
China Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court 09-02-2017 DISPUTE BETWEEN TWO CHINESE PARTIES - REFERENCE BY ONE OF THE PARTIES TO THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES - CHINESE COURT CONFIRMING THE SOLUTION PROPOSED BY THE CLAIMANT EVEN IF WITHOUT CLEAR REFERENCE TO THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES DEFINITION OF FRAUD - REFERENCE TO ART. 3.2.5 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN ORDER TO CONFIRM THE SOLUTION ADOPTED UNDER APPLICABLE CHINESE LAW | |
|
China Shaoxing Intermediate People’s Court 00-00-2018 DISPUTE BETWEEN TWO CHINESE COMPANIES - REFERENCE TO THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS A MEANS TO SUPPLEMENT APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW "COMMENTS" BY CHINESE JUDGES ON THEIR DECISIONS - NOT LEGALLY BINDING - FORSEEABILITY OF HARM - REFERENCE TO ART. 74 CISG AND ART. 7.4.4 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH WHAT TYPE OR EXTENT OF LOSS IS COVERED BY THE FORESEEABILITY TEST - IN THE OPINION OF THE JUDGE FORESEEABILITY RELATES ONLY TO THE NATURE OR TYPE OF THE HARM, NOT TO ITS EXTENT | |
|
China Beijing No 2 Intermediate People's Court 25-10-2019 DISPUTE BETWEEN TWO CHINESE PARTIES - REFERENCE BY ONE OF THE PARTIES TO THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES - CHINESE COURT CONFIRMING THE SOLUTION PROPOSED BY THE CLAIMANT EVEN IF WITHOUT CLEAR REFERENCE TO THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES FORSEEABILITY OF HARM - REFERENCE TO ART. 7.4.4 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 | |
|
Switzerland Bundesgericht 11-09-2023 LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - COOPERATION AGREEMENT - BETWEEN AN ITALIAN COMPANY AND A CHINESE COMPANY - GRANTING A TRADEMARK LICENSE AND TRANSFER OF KNOW-HOW IN RELATION TO SOME AIRCRAFT - EXPRESS CHOICE OF THE PARTIES OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES 2016 AS APPLICABLE LAW | |
| COLOMBIAN | 8 |
| CONGOLESE | 1 |
| COSTA RICAN | 5 |
| CYPRIOT | 8 |
| CZECH | 1 |
| DANISH | 3 |
| DUTCH | 23 |
| DUTCH ANTILLEAN | 1 |
| EAST ASIAN | 1 |
| EASTERN EUROPEAN | 6 |
| ECUADORIAN | 2 |
| EGYPTIAN | 1 |
| ENGLISH | 42 |
| ESTONIAN | 2 |
| EUROPEAN | 59 |
| FINNISH | 1 |
| FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS (FAO) | 1 |
| FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION OF WALES | 1 |
| FRENCH | 38 |
| GEORGIAN | 6 |
| GERMAN | 27 |
| GERMAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC | 1 |
| GIBRALTAR | 1 |
| GREEK | 4 |
| HONG KONG | 4 |
| HUNGARIAN | 3 |
| INDIAN | 11 |
| INDONESIAN | 1 |
| INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT (IFAD) | 1 |
| INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION | 3 |
| IRANIAN | 10 |
| IRAQI | 1 |
| IRISH | 1 |
| ISRAELI | 2 |
| ITALIAN | 52 |
| IVORIAN | 1 |
| JAPANESE | 5 |
| KAZAKH | 5 |
| KOREAN | 4 |
| KUWAITI | 5 |
| KYRGYZ | 1 |
| LATIN AMERICAN | 2 |
| LEBANESE | 7 |
| LIBYAN | 1 |
| LIECHTENSTEIN | 5 |
| LITHUANIAN | 17 |
| LUXEMBOURG | 1 |
| MALAYSIAN | 3 |
| MARSHALLESE | 1 |
| MEMBER FIRMS OF THE ANDERSEN WORLDWIDE ORGANIZATION | 1 |
| MEXICAN | 5 |
| MIDDLE EASTERN | 4 |
| MOLDAVIAN | 1 |
| MOROCCAN | 2 |
| NEW ZEALAND | 5 |
| NIGERIAN | 1 |
| NORTH AFRICAN | 2 |
| NORTH AMERICAN | 4 |
| NORWEGIAN | 2 |
| PAKISTANI | 2 |
| PANAMANIAN | 2 |
| PARAGUAYAN | 34 |
| PHILIPPINE | 2 |
| PLURALITY OF PARTIES OF DIFFERENT NATIONALITIES | 7 |
| POLISH | 14 |
| PORTUGUESE | 3 |
| PUERTO RICAN | 1 |
| ROMANIAN | 13 |
| RUSSIAN | 102 |
| RWANDESE | 1 |
| SALVADORAN | 1 |
| SAUDI ARABIAN | 1 |
| SCANDINAVIAN | 1 |
| SCOTTISH | 1 |
| SERBIAN | 2 |
| SINGAPOREAN | 5 |
| SLOVAKIAN | 1 |
| SLOVENIAN | 1 |
| SOUTH AFRICAN | 1 |
| SOUTH KOREAN | 1 |
| SOUTHWEST ASIAN | 1 |
| SPANISH | 43 |
| STATE OF THE FORMER SOVIET UNION | 1 |
| SWEDISH | 8 |
| SWISS | 26 |
| TURKISH | 8 |
| TURKMEN | 1 |
| UKRAINIAN | 26 |
| UNION OF EUROPEAN FOOTBALL ASSOCIATIONS (UEFA) | 1 |
| UNITED KINGDOM | 3 |
| UNITED NATIONS ORGANIZATION | 2 |
| UNITED STATES | 46 |
| URUGUAYAN | 3 |
| UZBEK | 3 |
| VENEZUELAN | 5 |
| VIETNAMESE | 1 |
| WEST INDIAN | 2 |
| WESTERN EUROPEAN | 2 |
SELECTED CASES BY DOMESTIC LAW INVOLVED
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). |