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 |
| 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 |
|
Arbitral Award ICC International Court of Arbitration 12745 00-00-0000 SHARE PURCHASE AGREEMENT - GOVERNED BY FRENCH LAW ASSIGNMENT OF A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING - NOT EFFECTIVE ON ACCOUNT OF FAILURE TO GIVE NOTICE THEREOF TO ASSIGNED PARTY - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 9.3.4(2) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Arbitral Award ICC International Court of Arbitration 25-04-1996 CATERING SERVICE CONTRACT - BETWEEN A FRENCH COMPANY AND A FRENCH-KAZAKH COMPANY - FRENCH LAW APPLICABLE NOTICE OF CANCELLATION OF CONTRACT - FRENCH LAW UNCLEAR AS TO WHETHER DISPATCH OR RECEIPT PRINCIPLE APPLICABLE - REFERENCE TO USAGES OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE (ART. 13(5) ICC RULES OF ARBITRATION) ACCORDING TO WHICH RECEIPT PRINCIPLE APPLIES - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Arbitral Award ICC International Court of Arbitration, Zürich 8769 00-12-1996 SERVICE CONTRACT - BETWEEN A FRENCH COMPANY AND AN AUSTRIAN COMPANY - PARTIES' CHOICE OF DOMESTIC LAW (FRENCH LAW) TOGETHER WITH THE 1980 UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON CONTRACTS FOR THE INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS (CISG) AS LAW GOVERNING THEIR CONTRACT INTEREST RATE NOT DETERMINED BY CISG (ART. 78 CISG) - REFERENCE BY ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL TO ART. 7.4.9(2) OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION OF COMMERCIALLY REASONABLE RATE | |
|
Arbitral Award ICC International Court of Arbitration, Paris 8873 00-07-1997 LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT - BETWEEN A SPANISH COMPANY AND A FRENCH COMPANY - PARTIES' CHOICE OF DOMESTIC LAW (SPANISH LAW) AS LAW GOVERNING THE CONTRACT - PARTY'S REQUEST THAT ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL APPLY UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS TRADE USAGES (ART. VII GENEVA CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION ART. 13(5) OF THE ICC RULES OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION) - ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL DECISION NOT TO APPLY THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES HARDSHIP PROVISIONS IN THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES (ARTS. 6.2.2 AND 6.2.3) - DO NOT PRESENTLY REFLECT CURRENT PRACTICE IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE | |
|
Arbitral Award ICC International Court of Arbitration, Brussels 9459 00-00-1998 SHARE PURCHASE AGREEMENT - BETWEEN A FRENCH SELLER AND A SPANISH BUYER - SILENT AS TO THE APPLICABLE LAW - APPLICATION OF SPANISH LAW AS THE LAW MOST CLOSELY CONNECTED WITH THE CONTRACT SILENCE OF THE PARTIES ON THE APPLICABLE LAW DOES NOT AMOUNT TO AN IMPLICIT CHOICE OF LAW - GENERIC REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Arbitral Award ICC International Court of Arbitration, Paris 8223 00-04-1998 LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT - BETWEEN A FRENCH MANUFACTURER AND A UNITED STATES COMPANY - GOVERNED BY DOMESTIC LAW (FRENCH LAW) - ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL'S REFERENCE TO ART. 2.19 [ART. 2.1.19 OF THE 2004 EDITION] UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO CONFIRM THAT PARTY'S SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT CAN TACITLY MODIFY A CLAUSE CONTAINED IN STANDARD TERMS | |
|
Arbitral Award ICC International Court of Arbitration, Geneva 9333 00-10-1998 SERVICE CONTRACT - BETWEEN A MOROCCAN PARTY AND A FRENCH PARTY - PARTIES' CHOICE OF DOMESTIC LAW (SWISS LAW) AS LAW GOVERNING THE CONTRACT - REFERENCE BY ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL TO CISG AND UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS USAGES OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE INTEREST (ART. 7.4.9 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES) (ART. 78 CISG) (ART. 104 SWISS CODE OF OBLIGATIONS) | |
|
Arbitral Award ICC International Court of Arbitration 9875 00-01-1999 LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - LICENSING AGREEMENT - BETWEEN A FRENCH COMPANY AND A JAPANESE COMPANY - SILENT AS TO APPLICABLE LAW – EXCLUSION BY ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL OF DOMESTIC LAW OF BOTH PARTIES – APPLICATION OF LEX MERCATORIA (ARTICLE 17 OF ICC ARBITRATION RULES) – REFERENCE TO THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS ONE OF THE POSSIBLE SOURCES OF THE LEX MERCATORIA | |
|
Arbitral Award ICC International Court of Arbitration 9875 00-03-2000 LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - LICENSING AGREEMENT - BETWEEN A FRENCH COMPANY AND A JAPANESE COMPANY - LEX MERCATORIA AS APPLICABLE LAW CONTRACT INTERPRETATION – INTENTION OF PARTIES DECISIVE – TO BE DETERMINED IN THE FULL CONTEXT OF THE CONTRACT AND OF THE CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES PREVIOUS AND SUBSEQUENT TO THE CONCLUSION OF THE CONTRACT – ARTICLES 4.1, 4.3 AND 4.4 OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES. CONTRACT INTERPRETATION – PRINCIPLE OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE – PROHIBITION FROM DOING INDIRECTLY WHAT THE CONTRACT PREVENTS FROM DOING DIRECTLY - ARTICLE 1.7 OF THE 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 ICC International Court of Arbitration 10335 00-10-2000 SHARE PURCHASE AGREEMENT - BETWEEN TWO GREEK COMPANIES AND TWO FRENCH COMPANIES - GOVERNED BY A PARTICULAR DOMESTIC LAW (GREEK LAW) – REFERENCE TO THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO DEMONSTRATE THAT SOLUTION FOUND UNDER DOMESTIC LAW CORRESPONDS TO MODERN INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL LAW. CONTRACT INTERPRETATION – IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARTIES’ INTENTION AND THE PRINCIPLE OF GOOD FAITH TAKING INTO ACCOUNT TRADE USAGES (SEE ARTICLES 173 AND 200 OF THE GREEK CIVIL CODE; ARTICLES 1.7, 1.8, 4.1 - 4.3 OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES). | |
|
Arbitral Award Ad hoc arbitration (San José, Costa Rica) 30-04-2001 LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - JOINT-VENTURE AGREEMENT - BETWEEN A COSTA RICAN AND A FRENCH COMPANY - ARBITRATION CLAUSE STATING THAT DISPUTES SHOULD BE SETTLED "ON THE BASIS OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR USAGES AND WITH REGARD TO THE MOST SOUND COMMERCIAL PRACTICES AND FRIENDLY TERMS" - APPLICATION BY ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES DEFINED AS "THE CENTRAL COMPONENT OF THE GENERAL RULES AND PRINCIPLES REGULATING INTERNATIONAL CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS AND ENJOYING WIDE INTERNATIONAL CONSENSUS" BREACH OF THE DUTY TO COOPERATE IMPLIED IN A JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT - REFERENCE TO ARTICLES 1.7, 1.8, 4.1, 5.3 AND 5.4 [ARTS. 5.1.3 AND 5.1.4 OF THE 2004 EDITION] OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF A CHANCE - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 7.4.3 OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Arbitral Award ICC International Court of Arbitration 9950 00-06-2001 LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - CONTRACT FOR THE SUPPLY OF INDUSTRIAL PLANT AND SUPERVISION OF ITS CONSTRUCTION - BETWEEN AN EGYPTIAN AND A FRENCH COMPANY - GOVERNED BY EGYPTIAN LAW DELAY IN COMPLETION OF PLANT - CLAIM BY PURCHASER FOR DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS - IN DECIDING IN FAVOUR OF CLAIMANT, ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL REFERRED NOT ONLY TO EGYPTIAN LAW BUT ALSO TO SWISS LAW AS THE LAW OF THE PLACE OF ARBITRATION AND TO THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES (ARTICLES 7.4.1 - 7.4.3). | |
|
Arbitral Award ICC International Court of Arbitration 9994 00-12-2001 LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - LICENSING AGREEMENT - BETWEEN FRENCH AND UNITED STATES COMPANIES - SUPERVENING HARDSHIP - PARTIES UNDER A DUTY TO RENEGOTIATE CONTRACT - REFERENCE NOT ONLY TO THE LAW GOVERNING THE CONTRACT (FRENCH LAW) BUT ALSO TO THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES (ARTICLES 6.2.2 - 6.2.3) | |
|
Arbitral Award ICC International Court of Arbitration 11018 00-00-2002 DISPUTE TO BE DECIDED ACCORDING TO LEX MERCATORIA AS EXPRESSED BY THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES - REFERENCE TO DOMESTIC LAW (FRENCH LAW) TO SUPPLEMENT UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES ILLEGALITY - EFFECTS - NOT [YET] COVERED BY UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES - REFERENCE TO FRENCH LAW | |
|
Arbitral Award ICC International Court of Arbitration 10930 00-00-2002 CONTRACT BETWEEN A FRENCH COMPANY AND A ROMANIAN COMPANY - CONTAINING A CHOICE OF LAW CLAUSE IN FAVOUR OF ROMANIAN LAW - REFERENCE ALSO TO THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES, DEFINED "INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNISED", TO SUPPORT SOLUTION ADOPTED UNDER APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW MISTAKE - REFERENCE TO ARTICLES 3.4 AND 3.5 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES FRAUD - REFERENCE TO ARTICLES 3.8 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Arbitral Award ICC International Court of Arbitration 12097 00-00-2003 SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN A FINNISH COMPANY AND A FRENCH COMPANY - SILENT AS TO THE APPLICABLE LAW – CISG APPLICABLE ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 1(1)(A) OF THE CONVENTION, THOUGH ONLY WITH RESPECT TO PART I AND III – ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL DECIDES TO APPLY THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES WITH RESPECT TO THE FORMATION OF THE CONTRACT AS WELL AS TO OTHER RESPECTS ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 7 AND 9 CISG. | |
|
Arbitral Award ICC International Court of Arbitration 13012 00-00-2004 CONTRACT BETWEEN A FRENCH COMPANY AND A UNITED STATES COMPANY - SILENT AS TO THE APPLICABLE LAW – ONE PARTY INVOKED APPLICATION OF FRENCH LAW, THE OTHER APPLICATION OF THE LAW OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS – ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT NONE OF THE CONNECTING FACTORS WITH ONE OR THE OTHER DOMESTIC LAW WAS COMPELLING AND DECIDED TO BASE ITS DECISION ON GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW OR THE LEX MERCATORIA – RECOURSE TO THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES “AS A PRIMARY SET OF GUIDELINES IN DETERMINING INTERNATIONAL RULES OF LAW APPLICABLE TO THE PARTIES’ CONTRACT”. | |
|
Arbitral Award Ad hoc Arbitration (Place unknown) 04-03-2004 LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT - BETWEEN A WESTERN EUROPEAN MANUFACTURER AND A CENTRAL EUROPEAN DISTRIBUTOR - FRENCH LAW GOVERNING THE CONTRACT – REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN SUPPORT OF SOLUTIONS ADOPTED UNDER FRENCH LAW GOOD FAITH PRINCIPLE ACCORDING TO ARTICLES 1134(3) AND 1135 OF FRENCH CIVIL CODE RELEVANT ALSO IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE – ARTICLE 1.7(1) OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES GOOD FAITH AND CONTRACT NEGOTIATION - PARTIES ENTERING INTO NEGOTIATIONS WITH A VIEW TO SETTLE DISPUTE BOUND TO ACT IN GOOD FAITH IN SEARCH OF AMICABLE SOLUTION – DUTY TO NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH NOT BREACHED BY MERELY REFUSING TERMS OF SETTLEMENT PROPOSED BY OTHER PARTY GOOD FAITH AND CONTRACT PERFORMANCE – DISTRIBUTORSHIP AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR YEARLY MINIMUM QUANTITIES OF GOODS TO BE PURCHASED BY DISTRIBUTOR – DISTRIBUTOR'S FAILURE TO MEET YEARLY QUOTA – MANUFACTURER’S CLAIM FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT CONTRARY TO GOOD FAITH WHERE DISTRIBUTOR PURCHASED A SUBSTANTIAL QUANTITY OF GOODS IN EXCESS OF YEARLY QUOTA AT THE END OF PREVIOUS YEAR AND ITS FAILURE TO PURCHASE GOODS THE FOLLOWING YEAR WAS DUE TO DISPUTE WITH MANUFACTURER CONTRACT PROHIBITING DISTRIBUTOR FROM SELLING SIMILAR PRODUCTS FROM OTHER SUPPLIERS – DISTRIBUTOR NEVERTHELESS SELLING COMPETING GOODS – MANUFACTURER AWARE OF IT BUT NOT OBJECTING PREVENTED FROM INVOKING YEARS LATER DISTRIBUTOR'S BREACH OF CONTRACT – PROHIBITION OF INCONSISTENT BEHAVIOUR A GENERALLY ACCEPTED PRINCIPLE IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE - ARTICLE 1.8 OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES 2004 | |
|
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 World Intellectual Property Organization Arbitration and Mediation Center (Geneva) 25-01-2007 LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - LICENSING AND JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT - BETWEEN A FRENCH INVESTOR AND A GERMAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY - SWISS LAW AS GOVERNING LAW - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES UNJUSTIFIED TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT - COMPENSATION OF LOSS OF A CHANCE - TO BE PROPORTIONATE TO THE PROBABILITY OF ITS OCCURRENCE (ARTICLE 7.4.3(2) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES) HARM DUE IN PART TO THE AGGRIEVED PARTY - AMOUNT OF DAMAGES TO BE REDUCED PROPORTIONALLY (ARTICLE 7.4.7 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES) | |
|
Arbitral Award ICC International Court of Arbitration, Paris 15949 00-05-2012 LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - SERVICE CONTRACT - BETWEEN A NORTH AFRICAN COMPANY AND EASTERN EUROPEAN COMPANY - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS MEANS TO INTERPRET AND SUPPLEMENT APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (FRENCH LAW) HOTEL MANAGEMENT CONTRACT - TERRORIST ATTACKS IN NEW YORK, DJERBA AND MARRAKECH AMOUNT TO FORCE MAJEURE EVENTS - RESPONDENT ALLOWED TO SUSPEND PAYMENT OF MINIMAL GUARANTEE PROVIDED IN THE CONTRACT - REFERENCE TO ART. 7.1.7 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES EFFECTS OF FORCE MAJEURE - WHEN THE IMPEDIMENT IS ONLY TEMPORARY, THE EXCUSE FOR NON_PERFORMANCE HAS EFFECT ONLY FOR A REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME HAVING REGARD TO CONSEQUENCES OF THE IMPEDIMENT ON CONTRACT PERFORMANCE - REFERENCE TO ART. 7.1.7 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AND ITS COMMENT | |
|
Arbitral Award ICC International Court of Arbitration ICC-FA-2020-005 00-00-2013 CONTRACT BETWEEN NORTH AFRICAN AND NORTH AMERICAN PARTIES AND EUROPEAN PARTY - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS MEANS TO INTERPRET AND SUPPLEMENT APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (MOROCCAN LAW) PRINCIPLE OF GOOD FAITH IN CONTRACT PERFORMANCE - FORMULATION OF ART. 231 MOROCCAN CODE OF OBLIGATIONS BROADER THAN ART. 1134 FRENCH CIVIL CODE - REFERENCE TO ARTS. 1.7 AND 5.1.3 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO CONFIRM THE SOLUTION ADOPTED UNDER MOROCCAN LAW | |
|
Belgium Court of Cassation of Belgium 19-06-2009 SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN A DUTCH COMPANY AND A FRENCH COMPANY - CONTRACT GOVERNED BY CISG PRICE OF THE GOODS INCREASED BY 70% OF THE CONTRACT PRICE - SELLER INVOKES HARDSHIP AND REQUESTS RE-NEGOTIATION OF THE CONTRACT PRICE - CISG SILENT ON HARDSHIP - GAP TO BE FILLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 7(2) CISG - REFERENCE BY THE COURT TO "GENERAL PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE LAW OF INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE AS LAID DOWN NOTABLY BY THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES" - SELLER'S RIGHT TO RE-NEGOTIATION AFFIRMED | |
|
Costa Rica Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, San José 17-06-2004 LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE CONTRACT - PLURALITY OF PARTIES OF DIFFERENT NATIONALITIES (ITALIAN, DUTCH, FRENCH) UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN SUPPORT OF THE SOLUTION ADOPTED UNDER APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (COSTA RICAN LAW) BREACH OF CONTRACT - REMEDIES - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN SUPPORT OF ARTICLE 425 OF THE COMMERCIAL CODE AND TO ARTICLE 692 OF THE CIVIL CODE OF COSTA RICA | |
|
France Cour d'appel de Grenoble 24-01-1996 TRANSPORT CONTRACT - BETWEEN A FRENCH COMPANY AND A UNITED STATES COMPANY STANDARD TERMS - CONFLICT BETWEEN A STANDARD TERM AND A NON-STANDARD TERM - NON STANDARD TERM PREVAILS (ART. 2.21 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES [ART. 2.1.21 OF THE 2004 EDITION]) INTERPRETATION - UNCLEAR CONTRACT TERMS SUPPLIED BY ONE PARTY - INTERPRETATION AGAINST THE SUPPLYING PARTY (CONTRA PROFERENTEM RULE) - REFERENCE BY COURT TO ART. 4.6 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
France Cour d'appel de Grenoble 23-10-1996 SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN A GERMAN SELLER AND A FRENCH BUYER - GOVERNED BY CISG JURISDICTION - 1968 BRUSSELS CONVENTION - BUYER'S CLAIM FOR RESTITUTION OF PRICE PAID IN EXCESS - JURISDICTION OF COURT OF THE BUYER'S PLACE OF BUSINESS PLACE OF PAYMENT OF PRICE - SELLER'S PLACE OF BUSINESS (ART. 57(1)(A) CISG) - EXPRESSION OF A GENERAL PRINCIPLE UNDERLYING CISG PURSUANT TO WHICH OBLIGATIONS TO PAY MUST BE PERFORMED AT THE PLACE OF BUSINESS OF THE CREDITOR - REFERENCE TO THE SAME GENERAL PRINCIPLE CONTAINED IN ART. 6.1.6 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES PLACE OF PERFORMANCE OF THE OBLIGATION TO REIMBURSE THE PRICE PAID IN EXCESS - BUYER'S PLACE OF BUSINESS | |
|
France Cour d'appel de Paris (1er Ch.C.) 05-03-1998 LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - CATERING SERVICE CONTRACT - BETWEEN A FRENCH COMPANY AND A FRENCH-KAZAKH COMPANY - GOVERNED BY FRANCE LAW REFERENCE BY ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL TO THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS A "CODIFICATION" OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE USAGES - WITHOUT EXPRESS AUTHORIZATION BY PARTIES - REFERENCE DOES NOT EXCEED TERMS OF SUBMISSION IF OF NO DIRECT IMPACT ON THE MERITS OF THE DECISION | |
|
France Cour d'Appel de Reims 04-09-2012 SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN FRENCH COMPANY AND POLISH COMPANY - DELIVERY OF GOODS IN INSTALLMENTS – CONTRACT GOVERNED BY CISG SELLER INVOKING HARDSHIP DUE TO SUBSTANTIAL PRICE INCREASE OF RAW MATERIALS – REQUEST FOR RENEGOTIATION OF PRICE BASED ON ARTICLES 6.2.2 AND 6.2.3 OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES BUYER OBJECTING TO APPLICABILITY OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS NOT BEING TRADE USAGES UNDER ART. 9 CISG REFERENCE BY COURT TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES, DEFINED “A CODE OF INTERNATIONAL CONTRACTS PROPOSED BY AN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF WHICH BOTH FRANCE AND POLAND WERE MEMBERS”, AS MEANS OF INTERPRETING AND SUPPLEMENTING CISG ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 7 CISG HARDSHIP - REFERENCE BY COURT TO ARTICLES 6.2.2 AND 6.2.3 OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES - SELLER FAILED TO PROVE THAT INCREASE IN COST OF PERFORMANCE OF ITS CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS PROFOUNDLY ALTERED BALANCE OF THE CONTRACT - HARDSHIP EXCLUDED | |
|
France Cour de Cassation 17-02-2015 SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN A FRENCH COMPANY AND A POLISH COMPANY - DELIVERY OF GOODS IN INSTALLMENTS – CONTRACT GOVERNED BY CISG SELLER INVOKING HARDSHIP DUE TO SUBSTANTIAL PRICE INCREASE OF RAW MATERIALS – REQUEST FOR RENEGOTIATION OF PRICE BASED ON ARTICLES 6.2.2 AND 6.2.3 OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES BUYER OBJECTING TO APPLICABILITY OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS NOT BEING TRADE USAGES UNDER ART. 9 CISG HARDSHIP - COURT OF CASSATION UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEAL AND EXCLUDING HARDSHIP AS SELLER HAD FAILED TO PROVE THAT INCREASE IN COST OF PERFORMANCE OF ITS CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS PROFOUNDLY ALTERED BALANCE OF THE CONTRACT - COURT OF CASSATION IMPLICITLY ADOPTING THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE COURT OF APPEAL THAT HARDSHIP FALLS WITHIN THE CISG AND THAT THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES DEFINE HARDSHIP'S SCOPE AND CONSEQUENCES | |
|
France Cour de cassation (Chambre commerciale) 16-11-2022 SUPPLY CONTRACT - BETWEEN A FRENCH COMPANY AND A US COMPANY - REFERENCE IN THE CONTRACT TO "GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW AS APPLIED TO INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL RELATIONS AND INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL USAGE" DISPUTE BETWEEN THE FRENCH COMPANY AND THE CREDITORS OF THE US COMPANY (ITALIAN AND US COMPANIES) BEFORE FRENCH COURTS - REFERENCE BY THE DEBTOR TO THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS REFLECTING THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND USAGES OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE, TO WHICH THE SUPPLY CONTRACT AND ITS PURCHASE TERMS AND CONDITIONS REFERRED - APPLICATION EXCLUDED - COUR DE CASSATION DENYING THE VALIDITY OF THE CHOICE OF THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW AND OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS LEX CONTRACTUS IN DISPUTE BEFORE STATE COURTS | |
|
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) 30-07-2010 STATE CONTRACTS - LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - CONCESSION CONTRACT - BETWEEN FRENCH AND SPANISH INVESTORS AND THE ARGENTINIAN GOVERNMENT - DUE TO ARGENTINA'S FINANCIAL CRISIS ARGENTINIAN AUTHORITIES ADOPTED A SERIES OF MEASURES NEGATIVELY AFFECTING PROFITABILITY OF FOREIGN INVESTORS' INVESTMENT - ALLEGED VIOLATION BY ARGENTINA OF BILATERAL INVESTMENT TREATIES - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET NATIONAL LAW (ARGENTINIAN LAW) RESPONDENT INVOKING FORCE MAJEURE AS EXCUSE FOR VIOLATION OF BIT - OBJECTION REJECTED ON THE GROUND THAT RESPONDENT WAS PARTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS FINANCIAL CRISIS REQUEST FOR RE-NEGOTIATION OF TERMS OF CONCESSION - IN ACCORDANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS IMPOSING IN LONG-TERM CONTRACTS IN THE EVENT OF HARDSHIP AN OBLIGATION TO NEGOTIATE CONTRACT ADAPTATION - REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 6:111 PRINCIPLES OF EUROPEAN CONTRACT LAW AND ARTICLES 6.2.2 AND 6.2.3 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES | |
|
Netherlands Rechtbank Zwolle 05-03-1997 SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN A FRENCH SELLER AND A DUTCH BUYER - GOVERNED BY 1980 VIENNA CONVENTION (CISG) - FRENCH LAW APPLICABLE UNDER ARTICLE 7(2) CISG - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES GOOD FAITH - NOTICE OF LACK OF CONFORMITY TO BE GIVEN "WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME AFTER IT […] OUGHT TO HAVE [BEEN] DISCOVERED […]" (CISG ARTICLE 39(1)) - APPLICATION OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES (AS WELL AS CISG ARTICLE 7(1)) ADOPTING BROADER CONCEPT OF GOOD FAITH THAN FRENCH LAW | |
|
Netherlands Gerechtshof's Hertogenbosch 16-10-2002 SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN A FRENCH SELLER AND A DUTCH BUYER - GOVERNED BY CISG INTERPRETATION OF CISG – REGARD TO INTERNATIONAL ORIGIN OF THE CONVENTION AND NEED OF ITS UNIFORM APPLICATION (ARTICLE 7 CISG) – REGARD TO COMMON PRINCIPLES OF CONTRACTING STATES – REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AND TO PRINCIPLES OF EUROPEAN CONTRACT LAW APPLICABILITY OF SELLER’S STANDARD TERMS – TRADE USAGE (ARTICLE 9(2) CISG)) INCORPORATION OF SELLER’S STANDARD TERMS INTO CONTRACT - APPLICATION OF GENERAL RULES ON OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE (ARTICLE 18 CISG) - REFERENCE TO STANDARD TERMS IN OFFER NECESSARY QUESTION AS TO WHETHER BEFORE OR AT TIME OF CONCLUSION OF CONTRACT BUYER MUST BE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO KNOW CONTENT OF SELLER'S STANDARD TERMS NOT EXPRESSLY REGULATED IN CISG - QUESTION LEFT OPEN IN UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES (CF. COMMENTS TO ARTICLE 2.20[ART. 2.1.20 OF THE 2004 EDITION]) – AFFIRMATIVE SOLUTION ADOPTED BY PRINCIPLES OF EUROPEAN CONTRACT LAW (ARTICLE 2.104) – SAME SOLUTION TO BE ADOPTED UNDER CISG AS IT PROMOTES GOOD FAITH IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND REFLECTS DOMESTIC LAW OF BOTH SELLER’S AND BUYER’S COUNTRIES (FRANCE AND THE NETHERLANDS) | |
|
United Kingdom House of Lords 01-07-2009 LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO ENGLISH COMPANIES - CONTRACT INTERPRETATION ACCORDING TO ENGLISH LAW - TRADITIONAL RULE THAT EVIDENCE OF PRE-CONTRACTUAL NEGOTIATIONS TO INTERPRET CONTRACT CLAUSE INADMISSIBLE CONFIRMED - DIFFERENT APPROACH INSPIRED BY UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES, PRINCIPLES OF EUROPEAN CONTRACT LAW AND CISG REFLECTING FRENCH PHILOSOPHY OF CONTRACT INTERPRETATION - AS SUCH INCOMPATIBLE WITH ENGLISH LAW | |
|
United Kingdom Supreme Court 27-10-2021 LONG-TERM CONTRACTS - FRANCHISE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - BETWEEN A LEBANESE COMPANY AND A KUWAITI COMPANY - CHOICE OF LAW CLAUSE IN FAVOUR OF ENGLISH LAW - ARBITRATION CLAUSE REFERRING ALSO TO "PRINCIPLES OF LAW GENERALLY RECOGNIZED IN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS" REFERENCE BY THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL TO THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES VALIDITY OF THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT - APPLICABLE LAW - REFERENCE TO ENGLISH LAW TOGETHER WITH UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE - CANNOT LEAD TO THE APPLICATION OF FRENCH LAW UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS MEANS TO SUPPLEMENT NATIONAL APPLICABLE LAW - CANNOT SUBSTITUTE PARTIES' CLEAR CHOICE IN FAVOUR OF THE LATTER | |
| 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). |