Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography

CISG CASE PRESENTATION

Bulgaria 24 July 2000 Arbitration Case 36/1999 [translation available]
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/000724bu.html]

Primary source(s) of information for case presentation: Case text

Case Table of Contents


Case identification

DATE OF DECISION: 20000724 (24 July 2000)

JURISDICTION: Arbitration ; Bulgaria

TRIBUNAL: Bulgarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry [BTTP (Bulgarska turgosko-promishlena palata)]

JUDGE(S): Unavailable

CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: 36/1999

CASE NAME: Unavailable

CASE HISTORY: Unavailable

SELLER'S COUNTRY: [-] (claimant)

BUYER'S COUNTRY: [-] (respondent)

GOODS INVOLVED: [-]


Classification of issues present

APPLICATION OF CISG: No

APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES

Key CISG provisions at issue: Article 1(2) and 1(3)

Classification of issues using UNCITRAL classification code numbers:

1B ; 1C [Relation to Contracting State: parties in different States; Civil or commercial character of parties not relevant]

Descriptors: Applicability

Go to Case Table of Contents


Editorial remarks

Go to Case Table of Contents


Citations to case abstracts, texts, and commentaries

CITATIONS TO ABSTRACTS OF DECISION

(a) UNCITRAL abstract: Unavailable

(b) Other abstracts

Unavailable

CITATIONS TO TEXT OF DECISION

Original language (Bulgarian): Praktika Bulgarska turgovsko-promishlena palata (BTPP) 2000-2001, No. 1 [9-10]

Translation (English): Text presented below

CITATIONS TO COMMENTS ON DECISION

Unavailable

Go to Case Table of Contents


Case text (English translation)

Queen Mary Case Translation Programme

Arbitration Tribunal of Bulgarian Chamber of Commerce & Industry
Case No. 36/1999 of 24 July 2000

Translation [*] by Bojidara Borisova [**]

Translation edited by Vessela Velkova [***]

SUMMARY

The criterion for determining the application of the CISG in this case is the difference places of business of the parties (meaning in different Contracting States) and not the nationality of the buyer and seller.

CASE DECISION

The claimant [seller], a company incorporated in Bulgaria, brought claims against the respondent [buyer], a company not incorporated in Bulgaria, including claims for the price of three different contracts concluded between the parties.

According to the provisions of the first contract, the parties chose to apply Bulgarian law. Notwithstanding the lack of an explicit clause defining the applicable law in the other two contracts, Bulgarian law must also be considered to be applicable to these contracts. This inference is in accordance with the principle accepted in Bulgarian Private International Law that, in the absence of an explicit choice of law, the applicable law is that of the State where the party who is to effect the performance which is characteristic of the contract has, at the time of conclusion of the contract, his habitual residence, or, in the case of a body corporate or unincorporate, its central administration. See the practice of the Arbitrate Tribunal in Case No. 75/95. When taking into consideration the later two contracts, the arguments for the application of Bulgarian substantive law are two: first, the place of business of the [seller] is in Bulgaria; and second, the performance of the contract is to be effected in the storehouse of the [seller], which is also in the territory of Bulgaria.

The CISG is not applicable, because the application of the Convention is determined not by the different nationality of the seller and the buyer but by their different places of business (Article 1(1) and (3) CISG). The Convention is applicable only if the fact that the parties have their places of business in different States appears either from the contract or from any dealings between, or from information disclosed by, the parties at any time before or at the conclusion of the contract (Article 1(2) CISG). The practice of the Arbitral Tribunal of the Bulgarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry is in accordance with this provision (see Case No. 59/95). Considering the facts of this case, it cannot be concluded that the contracting parties have their places of business in different States.


FOOTNOTES

* All translations should be verified by cross-checking against the original text. For purposes of this presentation, the Claimant is referred to as [seller]; the Respondent is referred to as [buyer].

** Bojidara Borisova is a candidate for the degree of Ph.D. in Law at Sofia University "ST.Kl.Oxridski", Bulgaria

*** Vessela Velkova, LL.B., is a participant in the LL.M. programme, Queen Mary, University of London.

Go to Case Table of Contents
Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated January 22, 2004
Comments/Contributions
Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography