Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography
Search the entire CISG Database (case data + other data)

CISG CASE PRESENTATION

Serbia 2 April 2009 High Commercial Court [translation available]
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/090402sb.html]

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

Case Table of Contents


Case identification

DATE OF DECISION: 20090402 (2 April 2009)

JURISDICTION: Serbia

TRIBUNAL: High Commercial Court

JUDGE(S): Unavailable

CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: Pž. 53/2009

CASE NAME: Unavailable

CASE HISTORY: Unavailable

SELLER'S COUNTRY: Contracting State

BUYER'S COUNTRY: Contracting State

GOODS INVOLVED: [-]


Classification of issues present

APPLICATION OF CISG: Yes [Article 1(1)(a)]

APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES

Key CISG provisions at issue: Article 53

Classification of issues using UNCITRAL classification code numbers:

53A [Buyer's obligation to pay price of goods]

Descriptors: Price

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 (Serbian): Click here from excerpt from Serbian text [published as Paragraf Lex Database of Serbian court decisions]

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

High Commercial Court in Belgrade

Judgment of 2 April 2009 [PZ 53/2009]

Translation [*] by Milena Djordjevic, LL.M. [**]

[...]

RULING

If the domestic court failed to apply the [CISG] and applied the [Serbian Law on Contracts and Torts] instead, such a decision shall not be revised by the appellate court if the first instance court would have reached the same decision by application of the [CISG].

REASONS FOR THE DECISION (EXCERPT)

The first instance court has erred when invoking provisions of the Serbian Law on Contracts and Torts (LCT). However, such an error does not raise doubts as to the validity of the judgment.

Namely, there was no basis for application of the LCT given that the parties come from the Contracting States of the [CISG], which means that the Convention applies and forms part of the domestic law for both parties, taking into account the provision of Art. 19 of the Law on Conflicts of Laws and the fact that there is no evidence that the parties have agreed to application of the LCT.

However, such an omission of the court does not change the finding of the first instance court since Art. 53 of the Convention obliges the buyer to pay for the received goods. Given the delay in payment, the seller also has the right to interest, as decided in the first-instance decision.


FOOTNOTES

* All translations should be verified by cross-checking against the original text. For the purposes of this translation, the Claimant is referred to as [Seller] and the Respondent is referred to as [Buyer].

** Milena Djordjevic, LL.M. (U. of Pittsburgh) is a Lecturer in International Commercial Law at the University of Belgrade Faculty of Law.

Go to Case Table of Contents
Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated September 27, 2011
Comments/Contributions
Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography