• Taux d'intérêt

• Intérêts simples/composés

Des indemnités sont accordées à la demanderesse, société américaine, pour manque à gagner résultant de la non-livraison, par la défenderesse, des produits convenus. En vertu du contrat signé entre les parties, le droit applicable au fond de l'affaire est la Convention des Nations unies sur les contrats de vente internationale de marchandises (CVIM).

'The amount awarded to the Claimant is subject to interest (Art. 78 CISG). The CISG is silent, however, as to the interest rate. In the Arbitrator's opinion it is appropriate, in general, to apply the interest rate of the place of business of the aggrieved party (Washington D.C.). This conforms best with the principle that, by granting damages, the aggrieved party is to be put in the situation in which it would be if the damaging (aggrieving) circumstance had not occurred. The Arbitrator further holds that, in general, the legal rate is to apply. A different approach may be appropriate if the aggrieved party suffers losses by the other party's failure to pay which exceed the amount of the legal interests, e.g. by having to make use of a credit facility at a higher interest rate or by not being able to make a specific and profitable placement of the money due to him. It is not, however, alleged that this is the case in this matter and thus only the legal interest rate is to apply.

According to the undisputed submission of the Claimant . . . the legal interest applicable in the District of Columbia was

- from 01.04.1995 until 30.06.1995 7%

- from 01.07.1995 until 31.12.1996 6%

No further data being supplied the Arbitrator assumes that the interest rate of 6% continues to be applicable. Accordingly annual interest of 7% (or 6% respectively) is to be granted to the Claimant. Interest in favor of the Claimant accrues from April 1, 1995. Up until this point the whole transaction would have been settled under normal circumstances taking into account the delay which occurred in 1994.

Compound interest is not awarded. Art. 78 CISG does not provide a sufficient basis for such a claim, at least not under the circumstances of the present case. Compound interest is not customary in international trade and thus a claim for compound interest could only be derived from Art. 78 CISG if this Article clearly provided for it. This is not the case.'