Лектора докладно проаналізувала разом з учасниками застосовне право до договірних зобов’язань у комерційних справах, а саме:

• 1. Choice of law clause definition. Визначення застереження про застосовне право.
• 2. EU regulations applicable to the contractual obligations. Правила ЄС, які застосовуються до договірних зобов’язань.
• 3. State law vs non-state rules: what to be chosen. Державні норми проти недержавних норм: що обрати.
• 4. Case review: how courts in different jurisdictions interpret choice of law clauses. Огляд справи: як суди в різних юрисдикціях тлумачать положення про вибір права.

У рамках характеристики застосовного права до договірних зобов’язань у комерційних справах акцентовано на наступному:

1. Choice of law clause definition. Визначення застереження про застосовне право

Choice of law clause:

• Governing law clause
• Applicable law clause
• Law selection clause

• is an agreement by which parties select the substantive law applicable to their underlying contract and, often, related disputes (regardless what court or arbitral tribunal applies that law);
• can be used with either a choice-of-court clause, an arbitration clause or, it can be included in a contract that has neither such clause.

Key purposes:

1. To minimize the risk of unexpected outcomes.

2. To protect the interests of the parties.

3. To avoid confusion and uncertainty.

2. EU regulations applicable to the contractual obligations. Правила ЄС, які застосовуються до договірних зобов’язань

What regulations govern the determination of governing law?

• Council Regulation (EC) NO. 593/2008 (ROME I) applies to contractual obligations;
• Council Regulation (EC) NO. 864/2007 (ROME II) applies to non-contractual obligations.

The Rome I Regulation:

Material scope

Article 1(1):

• Shall apply, in situations involving a conflict of laws, to contractual obligations in civil and commercial matters.
• Shall not apply, in particular, to revenue, customs or administrative matters.

Rome I applies to contracts concluded after 17 December

2009″ (Articles 28 and 29 of Rome I).

Contracts entered into before that date are governed by the predecessor instrument, i.e., the 1980 Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations.

Rome I:

• determines which national law should apply to contractual obligations in civil and commercial matters involving more than one country in the EU;
• promotes party autonomy and freedom of choice: Article 3(1) provides that “a contract shall be governed by the law chosen by the parties”.

Rome I features:

1. Applies within the European Union;
2. Overrides the national laws of EU states (excluding Denmark);
3. Establishes uniform rules for determining the law applicable to most civil and commercial matters;
4. Is binding only upon EU courts;
5. Arbitration agreements and agreements on the choice of court is excluded from the scope of this Regulation.

Applicable Law in The Absence of Choice (3 rules):

Article 4

• particular conflict of law rules;
• shall not apply, in particular, to revenue, customs or administrative matters;
• shall not apply, in particular, to revenue, customs or administrative matters.

Article 4 (1):

1. sale of goods (the seller’s law);
2. provision or services (the service providers law);
3. ights in rem in immovable property or a tenancy of immovable property (the lex situ vith an exception for tenancies of immovable property concluded for less than six months);
4. tenancies of immovable property concluded for less than six months (by the law of t untry where the landlord has his habitual residence, provided that the tenant is a natu person and has his habitual residence in the same country);
5. franchise contracts: (the franchisee’s law);
6. distribution contracts: (the distributor’s law);
7. sale of goods by auction: (the law of the country where the auction takes place);
8. certain financial contracts.

Article 4 (2):

• the general rule is that a “contract shall be governed by the law of the country where the party required to effect the characteristic performance of the contract has his habitual residence”.

Article 4 (3):

• where such law cannot be determined “by the law of the country with which it is most closely connected.”

3. State law vs non-state rules: what to be chosen. Державні норми проти недержавних норм: що обрати

Вибір права держави за законодавством України:

• «Вибір права – право учасників правовідносин визначити право якої держави підлягає застосуванню до правовідносин з іноземним елементом» (аб. 4 ч.1 ст. 1 ЗУ «Про міжнародне приватне право»).

• «Третейський суд вирішує спір згідно з такими нормами права, які сторони обрали як такі, що застосовуються по суті спору. Якщо в ньому не висловлено іншого наміру, будь-яке положення права або системи права будь-якої держави повинно тлумачитись як таке, що безпосередньо відсилає до матеріального права цієї держави, а не до її колізійних норм» (ч.1 ст. 28 ЗУ «Про міжнародне комерційний арбітраж»).

How to be with Rome I?

(Article 3)

Freedom of choice:

1. A contract shall be governed by the law chosen by the parties. The choice shall be made expressly or clearly demonstrated by the terms of the contract or th ircumstances of the case. By their choice the parties ca select the law applicable to the whole or to part only of the contract.

Приклади норм недержавного права:

• Principles of international commercial contracts (unidroit principles), 2016;
• Principles on choice of law in international commercial contracts, approved by the hague conference on private international law, 2015;
• Principles of european contract law (PECL);
• Principles of the existing ec contract law (Acquis Principles)/

Гаазькі принципи щодо вибору права:

A contract is governed by the law chosen by the parties (Article 2 (1)).

1. Commentary: Under the Principles, parties are free to choose the law of any State. Parties may also designate “rules of law” as provided in Article 3. Article imposes no ohter limitations or conditions on tne selection or the chosen law.

2. No connection is required between the law chosen and the parties or their transaction (Article 2 (4)).

Commentary:

Under the Principles, party autonomy is not limited by any requirement of a connection, whether geographical or otherwise, between the chosen law and the contract or the parties. Accordinaly, the parties may choose the law of a State with which the parties or their transaction bears no relation. This provision is in line with the increasing delocalisation of commercial transactions. Parties may choose a particular law because it is neutral as between the parties or because it is particularly well-developed for the type of transaction contemeplated.

(Principles on Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts, approved by the Haque Conference on Private International Law).

Принципи УНІДРУА, редакція 2016:

Модельне застереження про застосовне право:

Model Clause for inclusion in the contract “This contract shall be governed by the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (2016).”

(Model clauses for the use of the unidroit principles of international commercial contracts, published by the international institute for the unification of private law (unidroit), Rome, 2013).

4. Case review: how courts in different jurisdictions interpret choice of law clauses. Огляд справи: як суди в різних юрисдикціях тлумачать положення про вибір права

1. Case review Shamil Bank of Bahrain v Beximco Pharmaceuticals Ltd [2004]

Determination of governing law:

“S claimed against B as principal debtors in respect of monies advanced to them by S under various Islamic financing agreements and as guarantors of some of those agreements. The governing law clause contained in the financing agreements provided that “subject to the principles of the glorious Shari’a” the agreements woule be coverned oy and construed in accordance with ine laws or England.

S claimed amounts outstanding under the agreements when B failed to make payments. B`s defense was, inter alia, that on the prover construction or the governing law clause, the agreements were only enforceable in so far as they were recognized by Shari’a law and English law, and that the agreements were in fact contrary to Shari’a law”.

“The judge held that English law was the governing law because there could not be two separate systems of law governing the contracts. The parties had not chosen Shari’a law as the governing law because it was not the law of a country and there was no provision for the application of a non national system of law such as Sharia law. Further, it was highly improbable that the parties ha intended that an English secular court should determine any dispute as to the nature or application of such controversial religious principles…

.. the judge’s reasoning was influenced by the erroneous view that the principles of Shari’a constituted a body of controversial religious principles, as opposed to legal principles”.

2. ICC International Court of Arbitration (Arbitral Award) 20731 [2017] UNIDROIT Principles application:

Seller, an Indian company, entered into a contract with Buyer, a Romanian company, for the sale of stainless steel tubes, which were intended to be incorporated into heat exchangers manufactured by the Buyer and supplied to a third party. The confirmation of the order which Buyer sent to Seller by e-mail included the following clause: “Arbitration: Court of Arbitration of Paris”. Therefore, when a dispute arose between the parties regarding a series of defects detected in the goods, the Buyer commenced arbitration proceedings before the ICC International Court of Arbitration.

Since the parties disagreed on the law applicable to the dispute, the Arbitral Tribunal decided to apply the UNIDROIT Principles on the basis of art. 21.1 of the ICC Arbitration Rules (“rules of law which [the arbitral tribunal] determines to be appropriate”). The Tribunal then ruled by majority that the Seller was in breach of its obligations under the contract and under the UNIDROIT Principles, and ordered him to pay compensation to the Buyer in the amount of one million euros.

The Seller filed an appeal for the annulment of the award claiming, among others: 1) the lack of jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal, since the arbitration clause at issue was still at a negotiation and drafting stage, without the consent of both parties;

2) the arbitrators’ violation of the limits of their mandate for having applied the UNIDROIT Principles 2010 in order to solve the dispute, instead of Indian law, thus rendering an award on an equitable basis and not according to law.

The Court of Appeal rejected Seller’s arguments and confirmed the arbitral Award.

3) Amin Rasheed Shipping Co v Kuwait Insurance Co [1984] AC 50 [1983] 2 All ER 884

Using a standard form:

The parties had not specified the applicable law, they had used a standard form from Lloyds (English maritime organization).

“The court held that this was sufficient to indicate an implied choice of English law as the applicable law, since the legal terms in the contract could only be properly understood in the light of English law.

The court also noted that the only other possible applicable law (Kuwait law) did not contain any developed system of maritime law rules, which would have made it very difficult to decide the case otherwise”.

Першоджерело - https://tinyurl.com/hkw7brw