Swiss Arbitration Decisions

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.

The Federal Tribunal refers to two arbitrations. As it happens, I was one of the arbitrators in one of the two and it might not be fully appropriate for me to comment or criticize the decision.

Accordingly, I will simply point out the issues the Federal Tribunal dealt with:

(i) Section 3 of the opinion deals with jurisdiction. The interesting part is at 3.3.1.2 at pages 10 – 11.

The case, dated May 2nd 2012 and of limited interest, involved a contract between a Luxemburg company specializing in the trade of metals and minerals and a licensed trading house in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The contract they concluded in 2008 was governed by Swiss law and provided for ICC arbitration in Geneva.

The case involved a football club in Mexico and a Brazilian player. A dispute as to the player’s compensation resulted in a decision of the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber in November 2010, holding that it did not have jurisdiction, whereupon the player filed a claim with the Mexican Conciliation and Resolution of Controversies Commission (“CRCC”). On July 26, 2011, the CRCC found that the claim was time-barred under applicable Mexican law.

The case involved two football teams and a football federation. One of the teams was denied a license to play in the first division of the championship for the following season as it was involved in bankruptcy proceedings. However the team ended up playing in a qualifying playoff game, which it won, therefore obtaining the right to play in the first division of the championship for the following year – despite the bankruptcy proceedings.

It is seldom that the Federal Tribunal ventures into the area of investment protection. As some of you may remember, it did so to address the difference between a treaty claim and a contract claim in the relatively famous case of EDF v. Hungary of October 6, 2015.