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 13 result(s)
November 13, 2013

The case involved a dispute concerning a consultancy agreement by which a company undertook to provide services to ensure that a football player would remain with the club for which he was playing. The arbitration clause in the consultancy agreement provided for jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), before a panel of three arbitrators.

 

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_282/2013
Original language: 
French
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
Chairman: 
December 5, 2008

The opinion is quite interesting, as you will see. For one thing, the appeal was granted in part, which does not happen very often and caused it to be reported on the web site of the Global Arbitration Review on April 22nd (see enclosed article). The case involved whether or not a sole arbitrator sitting in Switzerland had jurisdiction on three parties not having formally signed the arbitration clause, in view of an other closely related contract signed the same day.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_376/2008
Original language: 
Italian
Published: 
27 ASA Bull 745 (2009)
also see 3 SwissIntArbRep 157 (2009)
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
PDF version of the translation: 
Arbitrator (s): 
October 18, 2011

The case involves a 2006 contract between an English company and a Canadian resident, acting as trustee for a trust that owned the shares of a company, sold the shares to the buyer. Simultaneously, an employment contract was entered into between the company owned by the trust, which was based in the United Arab Emirates and an Italian resident with a view to his future employment as a managing director.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_214/2011
Original language: 
Italian
Published: 
30 ASA Bull 677 (2012)
Parties
Respondent: 
Counsel
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
PDF version of the translation: 
Arbitrator (s): 
December 10, 2007

The ENUSA decision of the Federal Tribunal, which is the Supreme Court of Switzerland, related to a dispute between a Spanish company and an American company arising from a Marketing Agreement of August 1, 2003. The Marketing Agreement had been concluded between SHS CERAMICAS S.A., a Spanish company, which subsequently assigned its claim to ENUSA Industrias Avanzadas S.A. and LIPO CHEMICALS Inc. of New Jersey.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_352/2007
Original language: 
French
Published: 
26 ASA Bull 322 (2008)
also see 2 SwissIntArbRep 29 (2008)
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
May 26, 2010

The case is quite interesting because  most of the appeals of which the Swiss Supreme Court is seized against international arbitral awards are rejected, but this one was granted in part and the award was annulled.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_433/2009
Original language: 
French
Published: 
29 ASA Bull 673 (2011)
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
June 27, 2012

This quite interesting opinion is the second judgment of the Federal Tribunal in a case involving an American company which had outsourced the works for an airbase in Iraq to a Turkish company. The 2004 contract contained an ICC arbitration clause with venue in Geneva.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_54/2012
Original language: 
French
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
August 21, 2012

The opinion which is of very little interest involved arbitral proceedings with regard to a sponsorship contract for a cycling team. In a July 25, 2011 award, an ad hoc arbitral tribunal found that the sponsor was not entitled to terminate the sponsorship agreement it had with a Spanish company managing the cycling team.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_750/2011
Original language: 
Italian
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
PDF version of the translation: 
May 3, 2013

The case involved a contract between a Luxembourg and a Cyprus company for consulting work. An arbitration clause in the contract provided for arbitration in Lugano and a claim was made.

 

In an award of December 27, 2012, the ad hoc Arbitral Tribunal composed of Michele Patocchi P, Francesco Wicki and Pietro Moggi issued an award rejecting a jurisdictional defense and  ordering payment.

 

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_41/2013
Original language: 
Italian
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
Respondent: 
PDF version of the translation: 
February 20, 2015

The case involved a request for revision of an arbitral award issued on July 25, 2011. The dispute was about a sponsorship contract between an Italian company and the Spanish company managing a cycling team. The arbitral tribunal (arbitrators Renzo Galfetti and Pietro Moggi with chairman Paolo M. Patocchi) ordered the Italian company to keep paying the amounts in the contract. But it then turned out that one of the members of the cycling team was banned for two years for doping.

 

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_645/2014
Original language: 
Italian
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
PDF version of the translation: 
April 7, 2014

The case involved the construction of a plant for the production of aluminium foil pursuant to a 1997 contract. The completion of the project encountered several difficulties and was suspended in 2003, whereupon new agreements were entered into and the construction of the plant was entrusted to an Italian group comprised of several companies. When a counterclaim was filed, one of the companies objected to the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal concerning the counterclaim.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_450/2013
Original language: 
French
Parties
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
Chairman: 
July 8, 2016

The case involved an arbitration in Lugano in which the arbitrators (chairman Francesco Trezzini with arbitrators Henry Peter and Gianluca Airaghi) appointed an expert whilst giving the parties the opportunity to submit their own expert reports.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_259/2015
Original language: 
Italian
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
November 4, 2014

The case involved a 2013 contract governed by Swiss law between a New York company and a Swiss company for the construction of a Turkish bath in a Gstaad chalet. As the price of the hammam was substantial – some USD 31 million – the contract provided for payment in various installments and contained an arbitration clause in favour of  the Swiss Chambers’ Arbitration Institution rules (Swiss Rules) with venue in Geneva.

 

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_446/2014
Original language: 
French
Parties
Appellant: 
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
Chairman: 
March 31, 2009

French speakers subscribing to arbitrage-adr@yahoogroupes.fr will remember that Domitille Baizeau commented the decision in late May and readers of Global Arbitration Review may have noticed Philip Landolt's criticism of the decision in 4 Issue 5 Global Arbitration Review 30-32 (2009). Whilst appreciating the points he made, I do not fully agree with Philip's view as will be clear from the following.