Final Award in ICC Case No. 6379
Panel of Arbitration
XVII Y.B. Comm. Arb. 212 (1992)
- Written by Mary Katherine Cunningham, JD
Facts
An Italian manufacturer (defendant) entered a distribution agreement with a Belgian distributor (plaintiff). The distribution agreement provided that the parties would refer all disputes to arbitration under the Rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). The distribution agreement also provided that Italian law governed the contract and that the arbitral seat would be Köln, Germany. A dispute arose between the parties after the manufacturer allegedly terminated the distributor, and the distributor commenced arbitration proceedings. The distributor argued that certain provisions of Belgian law were mandatory. The manufacturer argued Italian law controlled the notice period rather than any Belgian provisions. The distributor countered that the manufacturer was in a stronger bargaining position and forced the distributor to accept the provision choosing Italian law as the governing law. The distributor reiterated that the termination required notice under the mandatory provisions of Belgian law. The distributor claimed the protection of Article 4 of Belgian Law of 27 July 1961, which provides that an agent who has suffered damages as the result of the termination of a distribution contract may initiate certain court proceedings. The distributor also claimed Article 6 of Belgian Law of 27 July 1961 provides the protection of Article 4 apply even if the parties contract otherwise.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.