Go to Database Directory || See also UNCITRAL Digest Cases + Added Cases
Search the entire CISG Database (case data + other data)

2012 UNCITRAL Digest of case law on the United Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods

Digest of Article 78 case law [reproduced with permission of UNCITRAL] [*]

[Text of article
Prerequisites for entitlement to interest
Interest rate]

Article 78

If a party fails to pay the price or any other sum that is in arrears, the other party is entitled to interest on it, without prejudice to any claim for damages recoverable under article 74.

INTRODUCTION

1. Article 78, which one court considered to constitute a "compromise",[1] deals with the general right or entitlement to interest on "the price or any other sum that is in arrears".[2] The provision does not, however, apply where the seller has to refund the purchase price after the contract has been avoided, in which case article 84 of the Convention governs as lex specialis.

2. Article 78 entitles a party to interest on "the price and any other sum that is in arrears".[3] According to case law, the aforementioned wording entitles a party to interest on damages.[4] According to one court, the text referred to also entitles to interest on a contractual penalty that has not been paid, "despite the fact that this case concerns the payment of interest on a contractual penalty and that the CISG itself does not govern contractual penalties as such. Article 78 CISG provides for a duty to pay interest with respect to ‘any other sum that is in arrears' and, therefore, also embraces exercisable contractual penalties that have been stipulated in a sales contract subject to the CISG."[5]

Prerequisites for Entitlement to Interest

3. Entitlement to interest requires only[6] that the sum for which interest is sought is due[7] , and that the debtor has failed to comply with its obligation to pay the sum by the time specified either in the contract[8] or, absent such specification, by the Convention.[9] One court stated that the issue of whether the sum was due was one left to the applicable domestic law, since the Convention did not cover it.[10]

4. According to several decisions, entitlement to interest under article 78 of the Convention — unlike under some domestic legal regimes — does not depend on giving formal notice or reminder to the debtor.[11] As a consequence, interest starts to accrue as soon as the debtor is in arrears. A court has stated that interest on damages accrues from the time damages are due.[12]

5. Both an arbitral tribunal[13] and a court,[14] however, have stated that interest does not accrue unless the creditor has sent to the debtor in default a formal notice requiring payment.

6. Entitlement to interest under article 78 does not depend on the creditor proving that he suffered a loss. Interest can therefore be claimed independently from the damage caused by the fact that a sum is in arrears.[15] On the other hand, the obligation to pay interest is not subject to exemption under article 79 of the Convention.[16] One court justified this on the following grounds: "Also an exemption of the debtor under article 79 CISG is not possible. The exemption of the debtor under article 79 CISG does only lead to a lapse of the claim for compensation, but the creditor can still rely on any other legal remedy. The payment of interest under article 78 CISG is not compensation and it is therefore independent of the question whether the debtor can justify its delay of payment according to article 79 CISG."[17]

7. As stated in article 78, the entitlement to interest on sums in arrears is without prejudice to any claim by the creditor for damages recoverable under article 74.[18] Such damages might include finance charges incurred because, without access to the funds in arrears, the creditor was forced to take out a bank loan;[19] or lost investment income that would have been earned from the sum in arrears.[20] This has led one arbitral tribunal to state that the purpose of article 78 is to introduce the distinction between interest and damages.[21] It must be noted that, in order for a party successfully to claim damages in addition to interest on sums in arrears, all requirements set forth in article 74 must be met[22] and the burden of proving those elements must be carried by the creditor,[23] i.e. the damaged party.

8. The Convention does not deal with compound interest. This led one court to decide on the admissibility of compound interest on the basis of its domestic law.[24] One court stated, on the contrary, that the Convention does not allow for compound interest.[25] A different court stated that "under the CISG, compound interest is not accorded automatically and the claimant, in this case the [seller], has to prove that it is entitled to compound interest, e.g., because [seller] had to pay extra interests itself since it lacked the payments that were due."[26]

Interest Rate

9. Several courts have pointed out that article 78 merely sets forth a general entitlement to interest;[27] it does not specify the interest rate to be applied,[28] which is why one court considered article 78 a "compromise".[29] According to some courts[30] and an arbitral tribunal,[31] the compromise resulted from irreconcilable differences that emerged during the Vienna Diplomatic Conference at which the text of the Convention was approved.

10. The lack of a specific formula in article 78 to calculate the rate of interest has led some courts to consider this to be a matter governed by, but not expressly settled in, the Convention.[32] Other courts treat this issue as one that is not governed by the Convention. This difference in the characterization of the issue has led to diverging solutions concerning the applicable interest rate. Matters governed by but not expressly settled in the Convention have to be dealt with differently than questions falling outside the Convention's scope. According to article 7(2) of the CISG, the former must be settled, first, in conformity with the general principles on which the Convention is based; only in the absence of such principles is the law applicable by virtue of the rules of private international law to be consulted. An issue outside the Convention's scope, in contrast, must be settled in conformity with the law applicable by virtue of the rules of private international law, without recourse to the "general principles" of the Convention.

11. Several decisions have sought a solution to the interest rate question on the basis of general principles on which the Convention is based.[33] Some courts and arbitral tribunals[34] have invoked article 9 of the Convention and determined the rate of interest by reference to relevant trade usages. According to two arbitral awards[35] "the applicable interest rate is to be determined autonomously on the basis of the general principles underlying the Convention". These decisions reason that recourse to domestic law would lead to results contrary to the goals of the Convention. In these cases, the interest rate was determined by resorting to a general principle of full compensation; this led to the application of the law of the creditor because it is the creditor who must borrow money to replace sums in arrears.[36] One arbitral tribunal expressly stated that: "since the matter of interest rates is governed, but not settled by the CISG, there is no need to examine [seller]'s request in the light of any national law, but rather examine whether it is within the checks provided in article 7 of the CISG. Therefore, the proposed rate has to be determined in accordance with the principles underlying the CISG .... One of the main principles of the CISG is the principle of full compensation. However, another principle suggests that compensation should not put creditor in a better position than he would be had the contract been performed. [Seller]'s request is fully in line with the above mentioned principles. In order to determine exact ‘domicile' (Serbian) rate for euro, one should not resort to Serbian law, since it regulates and is appropriate for local currency (RSD) rates only and would result in overcompensation if applied to sums denominated in Euro. Rather, it is more appropriate to apply interest rate which is regularly used for savings, such as short-term deposits in the first class banks at the place of payment (Serbia) for the currency of payment, as this represents rate on a relatively riskless investment. After examining interest rate figures and indicators on short-term euro deposits in Serbia, Sole arbitrator finds that the appropriate rate would be 6 percent annually."[37]

12. Other tribunals simply refer to a "commercially reasonable" rate,[38] such as the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR)[39] or the EURIBOR.[40] Other courts simply refer to the interest rate law of the currency.[41] One tribunal, although recognizing that the Convention does not specify an interest rate, stated that "the Treasury Bill Rate is appropriate to apply from among those argued by the parties".[42]

13. The majority of courts consider the interest rate issue to be a matter outside the scope of the Convention[43] and, therefore, pursuant to article 7(2) subject to domestic law.[44] Most such courts have resolved the question by applying the domestic law of a specific country, determined by employing the applicable private international law rules;[45] others have applied the domestic law of the creditor without reference to whether it was the law applicable by virtue of the rules of private international law.[46] There are also a few cases in which the interest rate was determined by reference to the law of the country in which currency the sum in arrears was to be paid (lex monetae);[47] in other cases, the courts applied the interest rate of the country in which the price was to be paid,[48] the rate applied in the debtor's country,[49] or even the rate of the lex fori.[50] Some courts applied the rate provided for in the Directive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on Combating Late Payment in Commercial Transactions. While some courts based this result on a private international law analysis,[51] other courts apply the Directive "directly", without justifying resort to the Directive on private international law grounds.[52]

14. A few decisions have applied the interest rate specified by article 7.4.9 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts.[53]

15. Despite the variety of solutions described above, tribunals evince a clear tendency to apply the rate provided for by the domestic law applicable to the contract under the rules of private international law,[54] that is, the law that would be applicable to the sales contract if it were not subject to the Convention.[55]

16. Where, however, the parties have agreed upon an interest rate, that rate is to be applied.[56] Where trade usages under article 9 allow one to determine the rate of interest, that rate of interest applies rather than the one to be determined on the basis of the law applicable pursuant to the rules of private international law of forum.[57]


NOTES

* This presentation of the UNCITRAL Digest is a slightly modified version of the original UNCITRAL text at <http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/clout/CISG-digest-2012-e.pdf>. The following modifications were made by the Institute of International Commercial Law of the Pace University School of Law:

   -    To enhance access to contents by computer search engines, we present in html rather than pdf;
 
   -    To facilitate direct focus on aspects of the Digests of most immediate interest, we inserted linked tables of contents at the outset of most presentations;
 
   -    To support UNCITRAL's recommendation to read more on the cases reported in the Digests, we provide mouse-click access to (i) CLOUT abstracts published by UNCITRAL (and to UNILEX case abstracts and other case abstracts); and also (ii) to full-text English translations of cases with links to original texts of cases, where available, in [bracketed citations] that we have added to UNCITRAL's footnotes; and
 
   -    To enable researchers to themselves keep the case citations provided in the Digests constantly current, we have created a series of tandem documents, UNCITRAL Digest Cases + Added Cases. The new cases and other cases that are cited in these updates are coded in accordance with UNCITRAL's Thesaurus.

1. See CLOUT case No. 55 [SWITZERLAND Pretore della giurisdizione di Locarno 16 December 1991] (see full text of the decision).

2. [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht des Kantons Zug 14 December 2009]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Koblenz 19 October 2006 (T-Shirts case)]; CLOUT case No. 823 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Köln 13 February 2006]; [GERMANY Landgericht Bamberg 13 April 2005]; [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht des Kantons Bern 22 December 2004]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Köln 15 September 2004]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf 22 July 2004]; CLOUT case No. 591 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Düsselodorf 28 May 2004] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 248 [SWITZERLAND Bundesgericht 28 October 1998] (see full text of the decision; [GERMANY Landgericht Aachen 20 July 1995]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt 18 January 1994]; CLOUT case No. 281 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Koblenz 17 September 1993](see full text of the decision).

3. [UNITED STATES U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, 19 May 2008 (Zhejiang Shaoxing Yongli Pringing and Dyeing Co., Ltd v. Microflock Textile Group Corporation)], stating that "[t]he CISG is silent on the issue of interest."

4. CLOUT case No. 328 [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht des Kantons Zug 21 October 1999] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 214 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht des Kantons Zürich 5 February 1997 (Sunflower oil case)] (see full text of the decision).

5. [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Hamburg 25 January 2008].

6. [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht des Kantons Zug 14 December 2009]; [SWITZERLAND Kreisgericht St. Gallen 16 October 2009]; [GERMANY Landgericht Bamberg 23 October 2006]; [GERMANY Landgericht Bamberg 13 April 2005]; CLOUT case No. 590 [GERMANY Landgericht Saarbrücken 1 June 2004] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 252 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht des Kantons Zürich, 21 September 1998] (see full text of the decision); [SWITZERLAND Bezirksgericht Arbon, 9 December 1994].

7. [SWITZERLAND Appellationsgericht Basel-Stadt 26 November 2008]; [GERMANY Amtsgericht Freiburg 6 July 2007]; CLOUT case No. 908 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht Zürich 22 December 2005 (Retail fashion clothes case)]; CLOUT case No. 907 [SWITZERLAND Tribunal cantonal du Valais 27 May 2005] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 906 [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht Nidwalden 23 May 2005] (see full text of the decision); [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht Zug 2 December 2004]; CLOUT case No. 590 [GERMANY Landgericht Saarbrücken 1 June 2004] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 591 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Düsselodorf 28 May 2004] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 893 [SWITZERLAND Amtsgericht Willisau 12 March 2004] (see full text of the decision); [BELGIUM Hof van Beroep Ghent 8 October 2003]; [GERMANY Landgericht Tübingen 18 June 2003]; CLOUT case No. 629 [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht Zug 12 December 2002]; CLOUT case No. 217 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht des Kantons Aargau 26 September 1997] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Amtsgericht Nordhorn 14 June 1994].

8. [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht des Kantons Zug 14 December 2009]; [GERMANY Landgericht München 18 May 2009]; [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht Zug 27 November 2008]; [SWITZERLAND Appellationsgericht Basel-Stadt 26 November 2008]; [GERMANY Amtsgericht Freiburg 6 July 2007]; [GERMANY Landgericht Coburg 12 December 2006]; CLOUT case No. 906 [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht Nidwalden 23 May 2005] (see full text of the decision); [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht Zug 2 December 2004]; CLOUT case No. 254 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht des Kantons Aargau 19 December 1997] (see full text of the decision).

9. For cases where courts had to resort to the rules of the Convention — specifically, article 58 — to determine when the payment was due because the parties had not agreed upon a specific time for payment, see [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht des Kantons Zug 14 December 2009]; [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht Bern 17 August 2009]; [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht Zug 27 November 2008]; [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht Aargau, Appellationsgericht Basel-Stadt 26 November 2008]; [SLOVAKIA District Court in Dolny Kubin 17 July 2008]; [SLOVAKIA Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky 3 April 2008]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Hamburg 25 January 2008]; CLOUT case No. 906 [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht Nidwalden 23 May 2005] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Landgericht Bamberg 13 April 2005]; [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht des Kantons Bern 22 December 2004]; CLOUT case No. 591 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Düsselodorf 28 May 2004] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Landgericht Mönchengladbach 15 July 2003]; [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht St. Gallen 11 February 2003]; [GERMANY Landgericht Stendal 10 December 2000 (12 October 2000)]; CLOUT case No. 79 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt a.M. 18 January 1994] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 1 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main 13 June 1991] (see full text of the decision).

10. CLOUT case No. 1038 [SPAIN Audiencia Provincial de Valencia 8 April 2008].

11. [GREECE Polimeles Protodikio Athinon 2009 (docket no. 4505/2009)]; [SWITZERLAND Appellationsgericht Basel-Stadt 26 November 2008]; [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht von Appenzell-Ausserrhoden 6 September 2007]; CLOUT case No. 934 [SWITZERLAND Tribunal Cantonal Valais 27 April 2007] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Köln 3 April 2006]; CLOUT case No. 908 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht Zürich 22 December 2005 (Retail fashion clothes case)]; [BELGIUM Rechtbank van Koophandel Hasselt 20 September 2005 (J.M. Smithuis Pre Pain v. Bakkershuis)]; CLOUT case No. 907 [SWITZERLAND Tribunal cantonal du Valais 27 May 2005](see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Landgericht Bamberg 13 April 2005]; [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht des Kantons Bern 22 December 2004]; CLOUT case No. 893 [SWITZERLAND Amtsgericht Willisau 12 March 2004] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Landgericht Düsseldorf 28 August 2003]; [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht St. Gallen 11 February 2003]; [BELGIUM Tribunal de commerce Namur 15 January 2002 (SA P. v. AWS)]; [BELGIUM Rechtbank van koophandel Kortrijk 3 October 2001]; [BELGIUM Rechtbank van Koophandel Kortrijk 4 April 2001]; [GERMANY Landgericht Stendal 10 December 2000 (12 October 2000)]; CLOUT case No. 217 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht des Kantons Aargau 26 September 1997] (see full text of the decision); [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht Waadt 11 March 1996]; [GERMANY Landgericht Aachen 20 July 1995]; CLOUT case No. 301 [ICC Arbitration Court of the International Chamber of Commerce, 1992 (Arbitral award No. 7585)]; CLOUT case No. 166 [GERMANY Schiedsgericht der Handelskammer Hamburg 21 March 21 June 1996]; CLOUT case No. 152 [FRANCE Cour d'appel, Grenoble 26 April 1995]; CLOUT case No. 303 [ICC Arbitration Court of the International Chamber of Commerce, 1994 (Arbitral award No. 7331)] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Amtsgericht Nordhorn 14 June 1994]; CLOUT case No. 55 [SWITZERLAND Pretore della giurisdizione di Locarno 16 December 1991] [cited as 15 December in CLOUT case No. 55].

12. CLOUT case No. 328 [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht des Kantons Zug 21 October 1999] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 214 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht des Kantons Zürich 5 February 1997 (Sunflower oil case)] (see full text of the decision).

13. [BULGARIA Arbitral Tribunal at the Bulgarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, 1996 (Arbitral award No. 11/1996)].

14. See [GERMANY Landgericht Zwickau 19 March 1999].

15. [GREECE Polimeles Protodikio Athinon 2009 (docket no. 4505/2009)]; CLOUT case No. 79 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt a.M. 18 January 1994] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 5 [GERMANY Landgericht Hamburg 26 September 1990] (see full text of the decision).

16. [ARGENTINA Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Comercial de Buenos Aires, 7 October 2010].

17. CLOUT case No. 893 [SWITZERLAND Amtsgericht Willisau 12 March 2004] (see full text of the decision).

18. This has often been emphasized in case law. See, e.g., [ARGENTINA Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Comercial de Buenos Aires, 7 October 2010]; [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht des Kantons Zug 14 December 2009]; [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht Zug 27 November 2008]; [SLOVAKIA Supreme Court 17 September 2008]; [SLOVAKIA Supreme Court 10 March 2008]; [HUNGARY Csongrád Megyei Bíróság 6 June 2007]; [SLOVAKIA Krajský súd ilina 8 January 2007; [BELGIUM Hof van Beroep Antwerpen 24 April 2006 (GmbH Lothringer Gunther Grosshandelsgesellschaft für Bauelemente und Holzwerkstoffe v. NV Fepco International)]; [SERBIA Foreign Trade Court of Arbitration attached to the Serbian Chamber of Commerce 21 February 2005]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 10 February 2005]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf 22 July 2004]; [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht St. Gallen 29 April 2004]; [SLOVAKIA Supreme Court 29 March 2004]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 19 March 2004 (Arbitral award No. 135/2003)]; [SWITZERLAND Tribunal cantonal du Valais 19 August 2003]; [BELGIUM Rechtbank van Koophandel Hasselt 17 June 1998]; CLOUT case No. 248 [SWITZERLAND Schweizerisches Bundesgericht 28 October 1998] (see full text of the decision); [ICC Arbitration Court of the International Chamber of Commerce, September 1997 (Arbitral award No. 8962)]; CLOUT case No. 195 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht des Kantons Zürich 21 September 1995]; CLOUT case No. 79 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt a.M. 18 January 1994] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 130 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf 14 January 1994] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 281 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Koblenz 17 September 1993]; (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 104 [ICC Arbitration Court of the International Chamber of Commerce, 1993 (Arbitral award No. 7197)]; CLOUT case No. 7 [GERMANY Amtsgericht Oldenburg in Holstein 24 April 1990] (see full text of the decision).

19. See [ARGENTINA Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Comercial de Buenos Aires, 7 October 2010]; [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht des Kantons Zug 14 December 2009]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Hamburg 25 January 2008]; CLOUT case No. 248 [SWITZERLAND Schweizerisches Bundesgericht 28 October 1998] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Amtsgericht Koblenz, 12 November 1996]; CLOUT case No. 195 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht des Kantons Zürich 21 September 1995]; [GERMANY Landgericht Kassel 14 July 1994]; CLOUT case No. 79 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main 18 January 1994] (see full text of the decision).

20. CLOUT case No. 7 [GERMANY Amtsgericht Oldenburg in Holstein 24 April 1990] (see full text of the decision).

21. CLOUT case No. 301 [ICC Arbitration Court of the International Chamber of Commerce, 1992 (Arbitral award No. 7585)] (see full text of the decision).

22. See CLOUT case No. 327 [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht des Kantons Zug 25 February 1999]; [GERMANY Landgericht Oldenburg 9 November 1994], where the creditor's claim for damages caused by the debtor's failure to pay was dismissed on the grounds that the creditor did not prove that it had suffered any additional loss.

23. It has often been stated that the damages referred to in the final clause of article 78 must be proved by the damaged party; see [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht des Kantons Zug 14 December 2009]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf 22 July 2004]; CLOUT case No. 343 [GERMANY Landgericht Darmstadt 9 May 2000] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 275 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf 24 April 1997](see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Amtsgericht Koblenz 12 November 1996]; [SWITZERLAND Amtsgericht Bottrop 25 June 1996]; CLOUT case No. 132 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Hamm 8 February 1995]; [GERMANY Landgericht Kassel 14 July 1994]; CLOUT case No. 79 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt a.M. 18 January 1994] (see full text of the decision).

24. [FRANCE Tribunal de commerce de Versailles 12 March 2010].

25. [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Brandenburg 18 November 2008 (Beer case)].

26. [BELGIUM Hof van Beroep Antwerpen 24 April 2006 (GmbH Lothringer Gunther Grosshandelsgesellschaft für Bauelemente und Holzwerkstoffe v. NV Fepco International)].

27. [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht des Kantons Zug 14 December 2009]; [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank Breda 16 January 2009 (Watermelon case)]; CLOUT case No. 248 [SWITZERLAND Bundesgericht 28 October 1998] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 301 [ICC Arbitration Court of the International Chamber of Commerce, 1992 (Arbitral award No. 7585)]; [GERMANY Landgericht Aachen 20 July 1995]; CLOUT case No. 83 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht München 2 March 1994] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 79 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt a.M. 18 January 1994] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 281 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Koblenz 17 September 1993] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 1 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main 13 June 1991] (see full text of the decision).

28. [ARGENTINA Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Comercial de Buenos Aires, 7 October 2010]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Saarbrücken 12 May 2010]; [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht des Kantons Zug 14 December 2009]; [GERMANY Landgericht Stuttgart 29 October 2009 (Artificial turf case)]; [SWITZERLAND Kreisgericht St. Gallen 16 October 2009]; [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht Bern 17 August 2009]; [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank Breda 16 January 2009 (Watermelon case)]; [GERMANY Landgericht München 18 May 2009]; [UNITED STATES U.S. District Court, New Jersey, United States 15 April 2009 (San Lucio, S.r.l. et al. v. Import & Storage Services, LLC)]; [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht Zug 27 November 2008]; [SWITZERLAND Appellationsgericht Basel-Stadt 26 November 2008]; [UNITED STATES U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, 25 July 2008 (Norfolk Southern Railway Company v. Power Source Supply, Inc.)]; [SLOVAKIA District Court in Dolny Kubin 17 July 2008]; [SLOVAKIA District Court in Nitra 29 May 2008]; [NETHERLANDS Arrondissementsrechtbank Zutphen 27 February 2008 (Frutas Caminito Sociedad Cooperativa Valenciana. v. Groente-En Fruithandel Heemskerk BV)]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Hamburg 25 January 2008]; CLOUT case No. 1022 [SERBIA Foreign Trade Court of Arbitration attached to the Serbian Chamber of Commerce 23 January 2008]; [GREECE Monomeles Protodikio Thessalonikis 2008 (docket No. 43945/2007)]; CLOUT case No. 1022 [SERBIA Foreign Trade Court of Arbitration attached to the Serbian Chamber of Commerce 23 January 2008]; [SERBIA Foreign Trade Court of Arbitration attached to the Serbian Chamber of Commerce 1 October 2007 (Timber case)]; [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht von Appenzell-Ausserrhoden 6 September 2007]; [GERMANY Amtsgericht Freiburg 6 July 2007]; [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht Aargau 19 June 2007]; [HUNGARY Csongrád Megyei Bíróság 6 June 2007]; CLOUT case No. 934 [SWITZERLAND Tribunal Cantonal Valais 27 April 2007] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 828 [NETHERLANDS Gerechtshof 's-Hertogenbosch 2 January 2007]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 29 December 2006]; CLOUT case No. 945 [SLOVAKIA District Court in Galanta 15 December 2006]; [GERMANY Landgericht Coburg 12 December 2006]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 15 November 2006]; [SWITZERLAND Tribunal cantonal du Valais 27 October 2006]; CLOUT case No. 723 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Koblenz 19 October 2006 (Tee shirts case)]; [SLOVAKIA District Court in Nitra 27 July 2006]; CLOUT case No. 930 [SWITZERLAND Tribunal cantonal du Valais 23 May 2006] (see full text of the decision); [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 27 December 2005]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 14 December 2005]; CLOUT case No. 919 [CROATIA High Commercial Court 26 July 2005]; CLOUT case No. 907 [SWITZERLAND Tribunal cantonal du Valais 27 May 2005] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 906 [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht Nidwalden 23 May 2005] (see full text of the decision); [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 9 February 2005]; CLOUT case No. 590 [GERMANY Landgericht Saarbrücken 1 June 2004] (see full text of the decision); [BELGIUM Rechtbank van Koophandel Hasselt 25 February 2004]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 3 February 2004]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 30 December 2003]; [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht Aargau, 18 December 2003]; CLOUT case No. 634 [GERMANY Landgericht Berlin 21 March 2003]; [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht St. Gallen 11 February 2003]; CLOUT case No. 629 [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht Zug 12 December 2002]; [ICC Arbitration Court of the International Chamber of Commerce, 2003 (Arbitral award No. 11849) (Fashion products case)]; CLOUT case No. 380 [ITALY Tribunale di Pavia 29 December 1999]; [BULGARIA Arbitral Tribunal at the Bulgarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, 1996 (Arbitral award No. 11/1996)].

29. CLOUT case No. 55 [SWITZERLAND Pretore della giurisdizione di Locarno 16 December 1991] [cited as 15 December in CLOUT case No. 55] (see full text of the decision).

30. [ARGENTINA Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Comercial de Buenos Aires, 7 October 2010]; CLOUT case No. 97 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht des Kantons Zürich 9 September 1993] (see full text of the decision).

31. [ICC Arbitration Court of the International Chamber of Commerce, 1995 (Arbitral award No. 8128)].

32. For a case listing various criteria employed in case law to determine the rate of interest, see CLOUT case No. 301 [ICC Arbitration Court of the International Chamber of Commerce, 1992 (Arbitral award No. 7585)].

33. For a very critical comment on decisions taking this approach, see [ITALY Tribunale di Padova 31 March 2004].

34. See [BELGIUM Rechtbank van Koophandel Ieper 29 January 2001]; CLOUT case No. 103 [ICC Arbitration Court of the International Chamber of Commerce, 1993 (Arbitral award No. 6653)]; [ARGENTINA Juzgado Nacional de Primera Instancia en lo Comercial n. 10, Buenos Aires 6 October 1994]; [ARGENTINA Juzgado Nacional de Primera Instancia en lo Comercial n. 10, Buenos Aires 23 October 1991].

35. See CLOUT cases Nos. 93 [AUSTRIA Internationales Schiedsgericht der Bundeskammer der gewerblichen Wirtschaft 15 June 1994] and 94 [AUSTRIA Internationales Schiedsgericht der Bundeskammer der gewerblichen Wirtschaft-Wien 15 June 1994] (see full text of the decisions).

36. For other tribunals applying the interest rate of the country in which the creditor has its place of business, see [CHINA International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, People's Republic of China, 2005 (Arbitral award No. CISG/2005/2)]; CLOUT case no. 303 [ICC Arbitration Court of the International Chamber of Commerce, 1994 (Arbitral award No. 7331)].

37. CLOUT case No 1020 [SERBIA Foreign Trade Court of Arbitration at the Serbian Chamber of Commerce 28 January 2009] (see full text of the decision).

38. See [CHINA International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, People's Republic of China, 18 April 2003]; [ICC Arbitration Court of the International Chamber of Commerce, December 1996 (Arbitral award No. 8769)].

39. See [CHINA International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, People's Republic of China, January 2007 [CISG/2007/05]]; [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht des Kantons Bern 22 December 2004]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 19 March 2004 (Arbitral award No. 135/2003)]; [ICC Arbitration Court of the International Chamber of Commerce, France, December 1998 (Arbitral award No. 8908)]; see also CLOUT case No. 103 [ICC Arbitration Court of the International Chamber of Commerce, 1993 (Arbitral award No. 6653)]; this arbitral award was later annulled on the grounds that international trade usages do not provide appropriate rules to determine the applicable interest rate; see [FRANCE Cour d'appel de Paris, 6 April 1995].

40. [SERBIA Foreign Trade Court of Arbitration at the Serbian Chamber of Commerce 16 March 2009]; [SERBIA Foreign Trade Court of Arbitration 5 January 2009 (award No. T-05/08)]; [SERBIA Foreign Trade Court of Arbitration at the Serbian Chamber of Commerce 15 July 2008]; CLOUT case No. 1022 [SERBIA Foreign Trade Court of Arbitration attached to the Serbian Chamber of Commerce 23 January 2008]; [SERBIA Foreign Trade Court of Arbitration attached to the Serbian Chamber of Commerce 1 October 2007 (Timber case)]; [SERBIA Foreign Trade Court of Arbitration attached to the Serbian Chamber of Commerce 30 October 2006 (Trolleybus case)].

41. [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht des Kantons Bern 17 August 2009]; [SPAIN Audiencia Provincial de Alicante 24 April 2009].

42. [AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION United States, 12 December 2007].

43. For this statement, see [UNITED STATES U.S. District Court, New Jersey, United States 15 April 2009 (San Lucio, S.r.l. et al. v. Import & Storage Services, LLC)]; [SWITZERLAND Tribunal cantonal Valais 28 January 2009 (Fiberglass composite materials case)]; [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank Rotterdam, the 21 January 2009, docket No. 277329 / HA ZA 97-272]; [SWITZERLAND Appellationsgericht Basel-Stadt 26 November 2008]; [GREECE Monomeles Protodikio Thessalonikis 2008 (docket No. 43945/2007)]; [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht Aargau 19 June 2007]; [HUNGARY Csongrád Megyei Bíróság 6 June 2007]; [SWITZERLAND Pretore del Distretto Lugano 19 April 2007 (Children's play structure case)]; CLOUT case No. 828 [NETHERLANDS Gerechtshof 's-Hertogenbosch 2 January 2007]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 29 December 2006]; CLOUT case No. 945 [SLOVAKIA District Court in Galanta 15 December 2006]; [GERMANY Landgericht Coburg 12 December 2006]; CLOUT case No. 917 [CROATIA High Commercial Court 24 October 2006]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 14 December 2005]; CLOUT case No. 944 [NETHERLANDS Gerechtshof 's-Hertogenbosch 11 October 2005]; CLOUT case No. 919 [CROATIA High Commercial Court 26 July 2005]; [SERBIA Foreign Trade Court of Arbitration attached to the Serbian Chamber of Commerce, 21 February 2005]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 10 February 2005]; [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht Aargau 25 January 2005]; [GERMANY Landgericht Kiel 27 July 2004]; [ITALY Tribunale di Padova 31 March 2004]; [GERMANY Landgericht Mönchengladbach 15 July 2003]. [GERMANY Landgericht Tübingen 18 June 2003]; [SWITZERLAND Tribunal cantonal du Valais 30 April 2003]; [SERBIA Foreign Trade Court of Arbitration attached to the Yugoslav Chamber of Commerce 9 December 2002]; [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht Schaffhausen 25 February 2002]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 30 July 2001]; [BULGARIA Bulgarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, 12 March 2001]; [BELGIUM Rechtbank van Koophandel Ieper 29 January 2001]; [ICC Arbitration Court of the International Chamber of Commerce, 2001 (Arbitral award No. 9771)]. For a decision referring to this conflict of laws approach as well as the approach favouring resort to the general principles of the Convention (for procedural reasons, the court did not have to decide which approach to favour), see [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Köln 15 September 2004].

44. Some decisions do not specify which law was applicable because all the countries involved in the particular dispute provided for either the same rate of interest (see, for example, CLOUT case No. 84 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt a.M. 20 April 1994]; CLOUT case No. 56 [SWITZERLAND Canton of Ticino Pretore di Locarno Campagna 27 April 1992] (see full text of the decision) or an interest rate higher than the one claimed by the plaintiff (see [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Dresden 27 December 1999].

45. See [ARGENTINA Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Comercial de Buenos Aires, 7 October 2010]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Saarbrücken 12 May 2010]; [FRANCE Tribunal de commerce de Versailles 12 March 2010]; [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht des Kantons Zug 14 December 2009]; [GERMANY Landgericht Stuttgart 29 October 2009 (Artificial turf case)]; [SWITZERLAND Kreisgericht St. Gallen 16 October 2009]; [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht Bern 17 August 2009]; [GERMANY Landgericht München 18 May 2009]; [UNITED STATES U.S. District Court, New Jersey, United States 15 April 2009 (San Lucio, S.r.l. et al. v. Import & Storage Services, LLC)]; [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank Breda 16 January 2009 (Watermelon case)]; [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht Zug 27 November 2008]; [SWITZERLAND Appellationsgericht Basel-Stadt 26 November 2008]; [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank Rotterdam 5 November 2008 (docket No. 267636 / HA ZA 06-2382)]; [UNITED STATES U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, 25 July 2008 (Norfolk Southern Railway Company v. Power Source Supply, Inc.)]; [SLOVAKIA Okresný súd Banská Bystrica 7 March 2008]; [NETHERLANDS Arrondissementsrechtbank Zutphen 27 February 2008 (Frutas Caminito Sociedad Cooperativa Valenciana. v. Groente-En Fruithandel Heemskerk BV)(docket No. 87379/HA ZA 07-716)]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Hamburg 25 January 2008]; [SLOVAKIA District Court in Dolny Kubin 21 January 2008]; [GREECE Monomeles Protodikio Thessalonikis 2008 (docket No. 43945/2007)]; [SLOVAKIA Okresný súd Bardejov, 29 October 2007]; [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht von Appenzell-Ausserrhoden 6 September 2007]; CLOUT case No. 938 [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht des Kantons Zug 30 August 2007]; [GERMANY Amtsgericht Freiburg 6 July 2007]; CLOUT case No. 935 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht des Kantons Zürich 25 June 2007]; [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht Aargau 19 June 2007]; [HUNGARY Csongrád Megyei Bíróság 6 June 2007]; CLOUT case No. 934 [SWITZERLAND Tribunal Cantonal Valais 27 April 2007]; [SWITZERLAND Pretore del Distretto Lugano 19 April 2007 (Children's play structure case)]; CLOUT case No. 828 [NETHERLANDS Gerechtshof 's-Hertogenbosch 2 January 2007]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 29 December 2006]; CLOUT case No. 945 [SLOVAKIA District Court in Galanta 15 December 2006]; [GERMANY Landgericht Coburg 12 December 2006]; [SWITZERLAND Tribunal cantonal du Valais 27 October 2006]; CLOUT case No. 917 [CROATIA High Commercial Court 24 October 2006]; [GERMANY Landgericht Bamberg 23 October 2006]; CLOUT case No. 723 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Koblenz 19 October 2006 (Tee shirts case)]; [GERMANY Landgericht Hof 29 September 2006]; CLOUT case No. 918 [CROATIA High Commercial Court 26 September 2006]; [GERMANY Landgericht Berlin 13 September 2006 (Aston Martin automobile case)]; [SLOVAKIA District Court in Nitra, 27 July 2006]; CLOUT case No. 930 [SWITZERLAND Tribunal cantonal du Valais 23 May 2006]; [SLOVAKIA District Court in Nitra 17 May 2006]; CLOUT case No. 911 [SWITZERLAND Cour de Justice de Genève 12 May 2006]; [GERMANY Landgericht Dresden 28 April 2006]; [BELGIUM Hof van Beroep Antwerpen 24 April 2006 (GmbH Lothringer Gunther Grosshandelsgesellschaft für Bauelemente und Holzwerkstoffe v. NV Fepco International)]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Köln 3 April 2006]; CLOUT case No. 909 [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht Appenzell-Ausserhoden 9 March 2006]; [SLOVAKIA District Court in Nitra 27 Feburary 2006]; CLOUT case No. 823 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Köln 13 February 2006]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 13 January 2006]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 27 December 2005]; CLOUT case No. 908 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht Zürich 22 December 2005 (Retail fashion clothes case)]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 14 December 2005]; [SLOVENIA Higher Court in Lujubljana 14 December 2005 (Door and door jamb case)]; CLOUT case No. 919 [CROATIA High Commercial Court 26 July 2005]; CLOUT case No. 907 [SWITZERLAND Tribunal cantonal du Valais 27 May 2005] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 906 [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht Nidwalden 23 May 2005] (see full text of the decision); [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 9 February 2005]; [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht Aargau 25 January 2005] [GREECE Single-Member Court of First Instance Larissa 2005 (docket No. 165/2005)] (English editorial analysis available); [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart 20 December 2004; [GERMANY Landgericht Bayreuth 10 December 2004]; [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht Zug 2 December 2004]; [GERMANY Landgericht Hamburg 6 September 2004]; CLOUT case No. 821 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe 20 July 2004] (see full text of the decision); [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 17 June 2004 (Arbitral award No. 186/2003) (barter transaction)]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commerical Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 9 June 2004]; CLOUT case No. 590 [GERMANY Landgericht Saarbrücken 1 June 2004] (see full text of the decision); [BELGIUM Hof van Beroep Ghent 17 May 2004]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf 21 April 2004]; [SLOVAKIA Supreme Court 29 March 2004]; [BELGIUM Rechtbank van Koophandel Hasselt 25 February 2004]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 30 December 2003]; [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht Aargau, 18 December 2003]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 17 September 2003]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Rostock 15 September 2003]; [SWITZERLAND Tribunal cantonal du Valais 19 August 2003]; [GERMANY Landgericht Mönchengladbach 15 July 2003]; [GERMANY Landgericht Tübingen 18 June 2003]; [GERMANY Landgericht Hamburg 11 June 2003]; [GERMANY Landgericht Köln 25 March 2003]; [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht St. Gallen 11 February 2003]; CLOUT case No. 629 [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht Zug 12 December 2002]; CLOUT case No. 495 [FRANCE Cour d'Appel de Versailles 28 November 2002]; CLOUT case No. 432 [GERMANY Landgericht Stendal 12 October 2000]; [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart 28 February 2000]; CLOUT case No. 630 [ICC Arbitration Court of the International Chamber of Commerce, Zurich, Switzerland July 1999 (Arbitral award No. 9448)]; CLOUT case No. 380 [ITALY Tribunale di Pavia 29 December 1999]; [ICC Arbitration Court of the International Chamber of Commerce, June 1999 (Arbitral award No. 9187)]; CLOUT case No. 328 [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht des Kantons Zug 21 October 1999] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 327 [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht des Kantons Zug 25 February 1999]; CLOUT case No. 377 [GERMANY Landgericht Flensburg 24 March 1999]; CLOUT case No. 248 [SWITZERLAND Schweizerisches Bundesgericht 28 October 1998] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 282 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Koblenz 31 January 1997]; [ICC Arbitration Court of the International Chamber of Commerce, 23 January 1997 (Arbitral award No. 8611)] (stating that the relevant interest rate is either that of the lex contractus or, in exceptional cases, that of the lex monetae); CLOUT case No. 376 [GERMANY Landgericht Bielefeld 2 August 1996]; [SWITZERLAND Tribunal de la Glane 20 May 1996]; CLOUT case No. 166 [GERMANY Schiedsgericht der Handelskammer Hamburg 21 March 21 June 1996] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 335 [SWITZERLAND Canton del Ticino Tribunale d'appello 12 February 1996] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Amtsgericht Augsburg 29 January 1996]; CLOUT case No. 330 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht des Kantons St. Gallen 5 December 1995] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Amtsgericht Kehl 6 October 1995]; CLOUT case No. 195 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht des Kantons Zürich 21 September 1995]; CLOUT case No. 228 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Rostock 27 July 1995]; [GERMANY Landgericht Aachen 20 July 1995]; [GERMANY Landgericht Kassel 22 June 1995]; CLOUT case No. 136 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Celle 24 May 1995]; CLOUT case No. 410 [GERMANY Amtsgericht Alsfeld 12 May 1995]; [GERMANY Landgericht Landshut 5 April 1995 (Sport clothing case)]; [GERMANY Landgericht München 20 March 1995]; [GERMANY Landgericht Oldenburg 15 February 1995]; CLOUT case No. 132 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Hamm 8 February 1995]; CLOUT case No. 300 [ICC Arbitration Court of the International Chamber of Commerce, 1994 (Arbitral award No. 7565)]; [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht Zug 15 December 1994]; [GERMANY Landgericht Oldenburg 9 November 1994]; [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht Zug 1 September 1994]; [GERMANY Landgericht Düsseldorf 25 August 1994]; [GERMANY Landgericht Giessen 5 July 1994]; [NETHERLANDS Arrondissementsrechtbank Amsterdam 15 June 1994]; [GERMANY Amtsgericht Nordhorn 14 June 1994]; CLOUT case No. 83 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht München 2 March 1994]; CLOUT case No. 82 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf 10 February 1994]; CLOUT case No. 81 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf 10 February 1994]; CLOUT case No. 80 [GERMANY Kammergericht Berlin 24 January 1994] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 79 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main 18 January 1994]; CLOUT case No. 100 [NETHERLANDS Rechtbank Arnhem 30 December 1993]; [SWITZERLAND Tribunal Cantonal Vaud 6 December 1993]; CLOUT case No. 281 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Koblenz 17 September 1993]; CLOUT case No. 97 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht des Kantons Zürich 9 September 1993]; [NETHERLANDS Arrondissementsrechtbank Roermond 6 May 1993 (Gruppo IMAR S.p.A. v. Protech Horst BV)]; [GERMANY Landgericht Verden 8 February 1993]; CLOUT case No. 95 [SWITZERLAND Zivilgericht Basel-Stadt 21 December 1992]; [GERMANY Amtsgericht Zweibrücken 14 October 1992]; CLOUT case No. 227 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Hamm 22 September 1992] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Landgericht Heidelberg 3 July 1992]; CLOUT case No. 55 [SWITZERLAND Pretore della giurisdizione di Locarno 16 December 1991] cited as 15 December in CLOUT case No. 55. CLOUT case No. 1 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main 13 June 1991]; CLOUT case No. 5 [GERMANY Landgericht Hamburg 26 September 1990]; CLOUT case No. 7 [GERMANY Amtsgericht Oldenburg in Holstein 24 April 1990].

46. Several court decisions have referred to the domestic law of the creditor as the applicable law, independently of whether the rules of private international law designated that law; see [BELGIUM Rechtbank van Koophandel Hasselt 20 September 2005]; [SWITZERLAND Bezirksgericht Arbon, 9 December 1994]; CLOUT case No. 6 [GERMANY Landgericht Frankfurt a.M. 16 September 1991] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 4 [GERMANY Landgericht Stuttgart 31 August 1989]; for criticism of the latter decision, see [GERMANY Landgericht Kassel 22 June 1995].

47. See [SPAIN Audiencia Provincial de Alicante 24 April 2009]; [SERBIA Foreign Trade Court of Arbitration 5 January 2009 (award No. T-05/08)]; [BELGIUM Rechtbank van Koophandel Ieper 18 February 2002]; [BELGIUM Rechtbank van Koophandel Veurne, 25 April 2001]; CLOUT case No. 164 [HUNGARY Arbitration Court attached to the Hungarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry 5 December 1995]; [HUNGARY Arbitration Court attached to the Hungarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry 17 November 1995 (Arbitral award No. VB/94124)].

49. See CLOUT case No. 911 [SWITZERLAND Cour de Justice de Genève 12 May 2006] (see full text of the decision); [GERMANY Landgericht Heidelberg 2 November 2005]; [GERMANY Landgericht Bamberg 13 April 2005]; [GERMANY Landgericht Kiel 27 July 2004]; CLOUT case No. 634 [GERMANY Landgericht Berlin 21 March 2003] (see full text of the decision); CLOUT case No. 211 [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht Waadt 11 March 1996].

50. CLOUT case No. 85 [UNITED STATES U.S. District Court, Northern District of New York, 9 September 1994].

51. [HUNGARY Judicial Board of Szeged 22 November 2007]; [SWITZERLAND Kantonsgericht von Appenzell-Ausserrhoden 6 September 2007].

52. [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht Bern 17 August 2009]; [GERMANY Landgericht Bielefeld 15 August 2003].

53. See [CHINA International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, China, 2 September 2005]; CLOUT case No. 499 [BELARUS Supreme Economic Court of the Republic of Belarus, 20 May 2003]; [ICC Arbitration Court of the International Chamber of Commerce, France, December 1996 (Arbitral award No. 8769)]; [ICC Arbitration Court of the International Chamber of Commerce, 1995 (Arbitral award No. 8128)]; CLOUT cases Nos. 93 [AUSTRIA Internationales Schiedsgericht der Bundeskammer der gewerblichen Wirtschaft 15 June 1994] and 94 [AUSTRIA Internationales Schiedsgericht der Bundeskammer der gewerblichen Wirtschaft — Wien 15 June 1994].

54. Some courts have characterized this approach as a unanimous one; see CLOUT case No. 132 [GERMANY Oberlandesgericht Hamm 8 February 1995]; CLOUT case No. 97 [SWITZERLAND Handelsgericht des Kantons Zürich 9 September 1993]. As the foregoing discussion demonstrates, however, this solution, although the prevailing one, has not been unanimously accepted.

55. See [GERMANY Landgericht Aachen 20 July 1995]; [GERMANY Amtsgericht Riedlingen 21 October 1994]; [GERMANY Amtsgericht Nordhorn 14 June 1994].

56. See [ARGENTINA Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Comercial de Buenos Aires, 7 October 2010]; [BELGIUM Hof van Beroep Antwerpen 24 April 2006 (GmbH Lothringer Gunther Grosshandelsgesellschaft für Bauelemente und Holzwerkstoffe v. NV Fepco International)]; [RUSSIA Tribunal of International Commercial Arbitration at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry 7 April 2006]; CLOUT case No. 1018 [BELGIUM Hof van Beroep Antwerpen 4 November 1998]; [GERMANY Landgericht Kassel 22 June 1995].

57. [GERMANY Landgericht Bamberg 23 October 2006]; CLOUT case No. 590 [GERMANY Landgericht Saarbrücken 1 June 2004] (see full text of the decision).


©Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated July 31, 2012
Go to Database Directory || Go to Information on other available case data
Comments/Contributions