Search for cases
CISG-online number
7451
Case name
Machinery case V
Jurisdiction
Germany
Court
Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart (Court of Appeal Stuttgart)
Chamber
1. Zivilsenat (1st panel for civil matters)
Date of decision
13 May 2025
Case nr./docket nr.
1 Sch 3/24
Claimant 1
Respondent 1
Case History
Seller 1
Buyer 1
Category of goods
74: General industrial machinery and equipment, not elsewhere specified, and machine parts, not elsewhere specified
Goods as per contract
3 machines with accessories
CISG applicable
yes
CISG applied
no, because the Court of Appeal does not scrutinize the Arbitral Tribunal's decision about the merits of the dispute, instead focussing on the enforceability of the award (which it eventually denies due the incompatibility with EU sanctions against Russia)
(Domestic) law applied in addition
1958 New York Convention
Decision published in 2
Full text of decision 1
by Ulrich G. Schroeter
The present decision was rendered in a proceeding concerning the enforcement of a Russian arbitral award that had been made in a dispute between a Russian buyer and a German seller. The Russian buyer had initiated the arbitration demanding the partial repayment of a contract price it had paid to the German seller. The German seller had not delivered some of the goods sold (3 machines with accessories), but had refused to repay the contract price because such repayment would violate EU sanctions (notably Art. 11(1)(b) in conjunction with Art. 3k of Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine). The arbitral tribunal seated in Moscow ruled that the German seller had to partially repay the contract price, seemingly referring to the CISG in the award.
In the present decision, the Court of Appeal Frankfurt refused to declare the arbitral award enforceable in Germany at the current time, holding that the arbitral award is incompatible with the EU sanctions currently in force in Germany and that its enforcement would therefore at the moment (but not necessary permanently) be contrary to German public policy (Art. V(2)(b) of the 1958 New York Arbitration Convention).