Swiss Arbitration Decisions

Use double-quotes to match a sentence or a date. Format dates as follows: "month dd, yyyy". (eg.: "february 23, 2007")
Found 381 result(s)
August 22, 2018

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_300/2018
Original language: 
French
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
Respondent: 
August 22, 2018

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_298/2018
Original language: 
French
Parties
Appellant: 
Counsel
Respondent: 
February 7, 2017

In a dispute between a Tunisian company and a company based in Germany (“Defendant 1”) along with its Tunisian subsidiary (“Defendant 2”) over unpaid invoices, the sole Arbitrator (Raphaëlle Favre Schnyder) found Defendant 1 liable and ordered it to pay the Claimant compensation. She dismissed all the claims against Defendant 2. Defendant 1 appealed the decision to the Federal Tribunal, arguing that the Arbitrator had violated its right to be heard.

 

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_478/2016
Original language: 
German
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
December 14, 2017

This is the well known case of Horthel Systems BV v. Poland, initiated under the 1992 Netherlands-Poland BIT. Horthel sought damages on the basis of articles 3(1) (Fair and equitable treatment) and 5 (Deprivation of investment without compensation and discrimination). At issue was the (modified) tax regime applied by the host state.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_157/2017
Original language: 
French
Parties
Appellant: 
Counsel
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
PDF version of the translation: 
Chairman: 
January 24, 2017

The case involved a purchase agreement for a packing machine governed by Swiss law, containing a somewhat pathological arbitration clause providing for arbitration by “the International Chamber of Commerce of Geneva”,  yet under ICC Rules.

 
Arbitration was initiated by the Purchaser in 2014. The Respondent raised a jurisdictional defense in addition to its submissions on the merits.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_672/2016
Original language: 
German
Published: 
36 ASA Bull 145 (2018)
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
April 17, 2018

In this judgment the Federal Tribunal reiterated the strict admissibility conditions in recourses to set aside arbitral awards, and more particularly, the requirement of a legally protected interest (or interest “worthy of protection”). The case involved an appeal against a CAS award rendered shortly before the FIFA World Cup Russia in June 2017, The sole arbitrator was Pierre Müller, a Lausanne judge.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_426/2017
Original language: 
French
Parties
Counsel
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
PDF version of the translation: 
Chairman: 

Pages