Featured

Some questions about the first decision of the Belgian court in the dispute between AstraZeneca and the European Commission

In the dispute between AstraZeneca and European Commission, the Belgian Court does not mention (in point IV. A. of the Decision) art. 25 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 Of the European Parliament and of the Council. This article states that “[i]f the parties, regardless of their domicile, have agreed that a court or the courts of a Member State are to have jurisdiction to settle any disputes which have arisen or which may arise in connection with a particular legal relationship, that court or those courts shall have jurisdiction, unless the agreement is null and void as to its substantive validity under the law of that Member State.

On the other hand, point IV.B.29 of the Decision states that “Les conventions doivent être interpretées au regard d l’intention commune des parties, conformément à l’article 1156 de l’ancien Code Civil”. But article 3 (1) of Rome I Regulation states that “[a] contract shall be governed by the law chosen by the parties.”

Has the court held that Article 3(1) of Rome I Regulation excludes the application of the CISG?

Did the Court apply its domestic conflict rules?

Does the choice of Belgian law by the parties preclude the application of the CISG?

We do not know for sure because the Court does not expressly address this issue. Unfortunately, there is still a long way to go before national courts apply, first of all, the principle of the primacy of European law and the CISG.

Featured

Force majeure under the “European Commission-AstraZeneca and European Commission-Curevac” contracts

(See more: https://cisg-online.org/Home/international-sales-law-news/force-majeure-under-the-european-commission-astrazeneca-and-european-commission-curevac-contracts)

Featured

Decision of the French Court of Cassation

03 February 2021

Summary:

Pursuant to Article 39 of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods of 11 April 1980 (CISG), a buyer is deprived of the right to rely on a lack of conformity if he does not report it within two years from the date on which the goods were actually delivered to him.

Decision of the Portuguese Supreme Court

Article 75 and Article 76 CISG cited in a decision of the Portuguese Supreme Court of Justice after the accession of Portugal to the Convention (see more)

Artigos 75 e 76 da Convenção de Viena sobre a Venda Internacional de Mercadorias citada em Acórdão do Supremo Tribunal de Justiça após adesão de Portugal (ver mais)

New CISG Advisory Council Opinion

CISG Advisory Council Opinion No. 21
Delivery of Substitute Goods and Repair under the CISG

To be cited as: CISG-AC Opinion No. 21, Delivery of Substitute Goods and Repair under the CISG, Rapporteurs: Professor (em.) Dr. Ingeborg Schwenzer, LL.M., University of Basel, Switzerland, and Dr. Ilka H. Beimel, Germany. Adopted unanimously by the CISG Advisory Council following its 27th meeting in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, on 3 and 4 February 2020.