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

CISG CASE PRESENTATION

Russia 23 September 1999 Supreme Court [translation available]
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/990923r1.html]

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

Case Table of Contents


Case identification

DATE OF DECISION: 19990923 (23 September 1999)

JURISDICTION: Russian Federation

TRIBUNAL: Cassational Board of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation

JUDGE(S): Fedin A.I. (Chairman); Nechaev V.I., Pelevin N.P. (Members of the Board); Koryagina L.L. (Prosecutor)

CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: KAC 99-253

CASE NAME: Petition by joint stock company "Fosforit"

CASE HISTORY: Earlier instances: Supreme Court of the Russian Federation 3 December 1998 [affirmed]; Supreme Court of the Russian Federation 3 August 1999 [affirmed]

SELLER'S COUNTRY: [-]

BUYER'S COUNTRY: [-]

GOODS INVOLVED: [-]


Classification of issues present

APPLICATION OF CISG: At issue was a currency control regulation involving a contract governed by the CISG

APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES

Key CISG provisions at issue: Reference to Articles 48 ; 50 ; 56

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)

Queen Mary Case Translation Programme

Cassational Board of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation
Case No. KAC 99-253 of 23 September 1999

Translation by Yelena Kalika [*]

Translation edited by Mykhaylo Danylko [**]

The Cassational Board of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation including

Fedin A.I.
Nechaev V.I. and Pelevin N.P.

with the participation of Koryagina L.L.

Chairman
Members of the board

(Prosecutor)

on 23 September 1999 reviewed a petition of the publicly held corporation "Fosforit." Petitioner claims that the Instruction on Currency Control of Proceeds Received by the Treasury of the Russian Federation from Export of Goods should be held void. The Instruction was approved by the Central Bank of the Russian Federation and the State Customs Department of the Russian Federation on 12 October 1993; in the redaction of the letter of the Central Bank No. 286-U; the letter of the State Customs Department No. 01-23/14616 of 13 July 1998. The case is being reviewed by this court on a cassational motion of the public JSC "Fosforit" on the decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 3 August 1999 in which the court denied the petitioner's claim.

After hearing a report made by the Judge of the Supreme Court Fedin A.I., as well as explanations given in support of the claim by Guschev I.V. (the representative of "Fosforit"), a report made by the representatives of the Central Bank of the RF (Larina E.L. and Davydov A.E.), a report made by the representatives of the State Customs Department (Naumov A.A. and Kozlov A.V.) objecting to the claim, and after hearing the conclusion that the claim had no grounds made by the Prosecutor (Koryagina L.L.), the Cassational Board has found:

Petitioner contested the above mentioned instruction at the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on the grounds that the said instruction had not been either registered by the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation or published in a [law]-provided manner for public information.

In addition, the petitioner contested provisions 6.10, 6.11, 6.14 and 6.15 of the Instruction alleging that they do not comply with the law in essence and context.

The court entered the judgment mentioned above.

In the cassational complaint Petitioner argues that the court's decision should be reversed arguing that the court's reasoning on the instruction's compliance with law was erroneous.

After reviewing the materials of the case and after discussing the arguments stated in the cassational complaint, the Cassational Board finds no grounds for reversing the decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.

The trial court found that the contested provisions 6.10, 6.11, 6.14 and 6.15 of the Instruction do not contradict the requirements of the federal legislation. In particular, they do not contradict Article 5 of the Law of the Russian Federation on currency control and regulation from which it follows that all the foreign currency (and not just any portion of it) received by the exporters must be transferred to their accounts in the authorized banks.

Neither do the contested provisions of the Instruction contradict the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods.

Articles 48, 50, 56 of the Convention govern the relationships between a seller and a buyer following from contracts for the international sale of goods. As to the issue of the currency control regulated by the said Instruction, these articles are irrelevant.

Therefore, the Supreme Court has correctly held that the contested provisions of the Instruction do not contradict the federal legislation and international treaties


FOOTNOTE

* 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.

All translations should be verified by cross-checking against the original text.

** Mykhaylo Danylko holds a Master of Laws (European Studies Program) from the Law School of International Business Science and Technology University, Kiev, Ukraine (July 2000); a Master of Management in Business of the Business School of International Science and Technology University, Kiev, Ukraine (June 2002); and is a candidate for an LL.M. in International and Comparative Law at the Pace University School of Law.

Go to Case Table of Contents
Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated September 22, 2003
Comments/Contributions
Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography