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

CISG CASE PRESENTATION

Russia 27 April 2001 Arbitration Court [Appellate Court] for the Moscow Region [translation available]
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/010427r2.html]

Primary source(s) of information for case presentation: Alexandre Muranov

Case Table of Contents


Case identification

DATE OF DECISION: 20010427 (27 April 2001)

JURISDICTION: Russian Federation

TRIBUNAL: Federal Arbitration Court for the Moscow Region [Cassation Instance]

JUDGE(S): Unavailable

CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: KG-A40/1946-01

CASE NAME: Es-Print v. Makhaon Company

CASE HISTORY: 1st instance Arbitration Court for the City of Moscow (A40-38829/00-40-355) 22 January 2001 [affirmed]

SELLER'S COUNTRY: [-] (claimant)

BUYER'S COUNTRY: [-] (respondent)

GOODS INVOLVED: Printed matter


Classification of issues present

APPLICATION OF CISG: Yes

APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES

Key CISG provisions at issue: Articles 61 ; 64 ; 81(1)

Classification of issues using UNCITRAL classification code numbers:

Unavailable

Descriptors: Unavailable

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 (Russian): Unavailable

Translation (English): Text presented below

CITATIONS TO COMMENTS ON DECISION

Unavailable

Go to Case Table of Contents
Case text (English translation) [second draft]

Queen Mary Case Translation Programme

Federal Arbitration Court for the Moscow Circuit

Case No. KG-A40/1946-01 of 27 April 2001

Translation [*] by Yelena Kalika [**]

Resolution
of Cassation Board on lawfulness and reasonableness of decision of Arbitration Court

The Claimant "Es-Print" [Seller] commenced an action against the Respondent "Makhaon Company" [Buyer] to recover Finnish markka [Fmk] 26,850.00 of unjust enrichment (the cost of unreasonably retained goods).

By the decision of the Arbitration Court for the City of Moscow of 22 January 2001 on case No. A40-38829/00-40-355 the claim was denied.

An Appellate Division did not review the lawfulness and reasonableness of the decision.

The [Seller] disagrees with the decision of the court. He refers to the incorrect application of the rules of substantive law. The [Seller] asks for a new decision sustaining the claim.

At the hearing held by the Cassation Board the representative of the [Seller] argued for the claim.

There has been no reply to the [Cassation] Complaint.

After reviewing the materials of the case and discussing the arguments stated in the complaint as well as after hearing the arguments of the [Seller]'s representative, the court is of the opinion that the decision should not be reversed.

The court has established that the parties participated in an international commercial transaction. The contract No. F1-246/ISV/1-012 of 3 June 1998 contains an arbitration clause setting forth that any disputes shall be arbitrated by the Arbitral Tribunal at the International Chamber of Commerce in Stockholm, Sweden.

The court found that the contract was declared avoided and that the dispute was to be adjudicated by a Russian Arbitration Court pursuant to Article 212(2)(5) of the Russian Federation Arbitration Procedure Code.

The claim is based on the fact that the [Seller] manufactured and delivered to the [Buyer] some printed matter. The goods, which were received by the [Buyer] under customs declarations No. 175601 97 and 11718655, were only partially paid. The cost of the unpaid goods in the amount of Fmk 26,850.00, in [Seller]'s opinion, represents unjust enrichment. Therefore, the [Seller] asks to collect the said amount in accordance with Articles 61 and 64 CISG.

When denying recovery of the amount of unjust enrichment, the court stated that the goods were delivered under the contract. Therefore, Article 1102 of the Russian Federation Civil Code on unjust enrichment is not applicable.

The Cassation Board does not find sufficient grounds to reverse the judicial act.

In the materials of the case there is no evidence that the [Seller]'s representative, who notified the [Buyer] that the contract was avoided, had any authority to do so.

The [Seller] insists that the amount of unjust enrichment should be recovered. Taking his position into account, the subject of the claim has not changed.

Pursuant to Article 81(1) CISG, avoidance of the contract does not release parties from their obligations to pay damages which they may claim under the Convention.

The [Buyer] does not appeal the adjudication of the case by a Russian court.

In these circumstances, the decision meets the requirements set forth in the applicable substantive law. The court did not commit any violations of the rules of procedural law. The Cassation Complaint is denied.

Pursuant to Articles 171, 174, 175 and 177 of the Russian Federation Arbitration Procedure Code, the Federal Arbitration Court for the Moscow Circuit

HOLDS:

The decision of the Arbitration Court for the City of Moscow of 22 January 2001 on case No. A40-38829/00-40-355 is upheld. The Cassation Complaint filed by the [Seller] is denied.


FOOTNOTES

* All translations should be verified by cross-checking against the original text. For purposes of this translation Claimant "Es-Print" is referred to as [Seller] and Respondent "Makhaon Company" is referred to as [Buyer]. Amounts in the currency of Finland (Finnish markka) are indicated as [Fmk].

** Yelena Kalika, a law student at the Pace University School of Law, has studied at the Moscow State Law Academy, interned with a Moscow law firm, and is a Research Assistant at the Pace Institute of International Commercial Law.

Go to Case Table of Contents
Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated February 25, 2004
Comments/Contributions
Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography