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 12 result(s)
August 14, 2008

The case involves an attempt at obtaining revision of an award of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) of April 16, 2008, in which the sole arbitrator rejected a claim for a commission on the transfer of a football player. Revision was sought on the basis of subsequent discovery of an alleged lack of impartiality of the arbitrator (see at 2.2.2).

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_234/2008
Original language: 
French
Published: 
29 ASA Bull 512 (2009)
also see 2 SwissIntArbRep 303 (2008)
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
PDF version of the translation: 
Arbitrator (s): 
August 21, 2008

The case is nothing to write home about but it still diserves a quick perusal. It involved an ICC arbitration in Bern with Prof. Wolfgang Wiegandt as chairman, dealing with a 1986 Joint Venture Agreement ("JVA") between two companies in Italy and Bosnia-Herzegovina. The case was stayed due to the political situation for quite a while, then a partial award was issued determining, among other things, that Swiss law applied to the JVA.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_194/2008
Original language: 
German
Published: 
26 ASA Bull 793 (2008)
also see 2 SwissIntArbRep 283 (2008)
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
PDF version of the translation: 
Arbitrator (s): 
January 11, 2010

The Swiss Supreme Court issued on January 11, 2010 two opinions (4A_256/2009 and 4A_258/2009) regarding appeals with very similar and involved only one context of facts. The opinions are accordingly almost identical and one need not read both of them as one will be sufficient.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_258/2009
Original language: 
German
Published: 
28 ASA Bull 540 (2010)
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
Chairman: 
Arbitrator (s): 
January 11, 2010

The Swiss Supreme Court issued on January 11, 2010 (4A_258/2009) two opinions regarding appeals with very similar and involved only one context of facts. The opinions are accordingly almost identical and one need not read both of them as one will be sufficient.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_256/2009
Original language: 
German
Published: 
28 ASA Bull 552 (2010) (extract)
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
Chairman: 
Arbitrator (s): 
February 15, 2010

The case involved a 1998 contract between a French group and a Turkish company, subsequently substituted by an agency of the Turkish government, for the supply of a certain number of missiles and firing units. The contract provided for ICC arbitration in Zurich and also for an advanced payment of the purchase price by way of instalments amounting to 55 % of the total price, subject to an obligation to return such amounts in case of breach.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_464/2009
Original language: 
French
Published: 
28 ASA Bull 282 (2010)
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
Chairman: 
March 21, 2011

The dispute arose between a Tunisian citizen and a French company and the Shareholders’ Agreement they had entered into on September 4, 2010. The Agreement contained an arbitration clause providing for ICC arbitration in Geneva. A three-member panel of arbitrators was constituted with Tim Portwood as Chairman, and Paul Friedland and Francesco Marena as Arbitrators. The arbitral tribunal issued an award on March 1, 2010, which the French company sought to rectify.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_486/2010
Original language: 
French
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
Chairman: 
January 4, 2012

This judgment, dated January 4, 2012 and the first decision issued in 2012, is quite interesting and deserves reading.

It involved a Tunisian businessman who entered into certain agreements with some foreign companies. The agreements contained an opting out of appeals worded as follows:

“The decision of the arbitration shall be final and binding and neither Party shall have any right to appeal such decision to any court of law”.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_238/2011
Original language: 
French
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
Chairman: 
February 4, 2014

The case involved a contract governed by Swiss law for the work done on the boiler of a Bulgarian cellulose plant by a Finnish company.

A disagreement arose as a consequence of various delays and the Bulgarian company initiated arbitral proceedings during which the arbitration clause was amended.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_460/2013
Original language: 
German
Published: 
32 ASA Bull 356 (2014)
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
April 3, 2014

The case involved a 2006 contract for the delivery of a piece of machinery, which failed the final acceptance test upon delivery in 2007.

While the summary of the facts does not indicate which law governed the contract, there was an ICC arbitration clause with seat in Zürich and in October 2013, arbitrator Gabriel Simon upheld the claim and rejected the counterclaim.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_577/2013
Original language: 
German
Published: 
32 ASA Bull 575 (2014)
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
January 18, 2017

The case involved a Share Purchase Agreement, between a company in Belize and another governed by Jordanian law, providing for LCIA arbitration in Zurich. The contract contained a clause waving any appeal against the arbitral award.

 

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_500/2015
Original language: 
French
Published: 
35 ASA Bull 959 (2017), ATF 143 III 55
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
Chairman: 
October 17, 2017

Readers interested in investment arbitration will recognize the case of Croatia v. MOL Hungarian Oil and gas PLC and may also wish to look up the interim decision (equally interesting) at  https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw94017_0.pdf.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_53/2017
Original language: 
French
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
Chairman: 
Arbitrator (s): 
October 10, 2008

The decision is quite interesting as the case involved work on a plant in Turkey, for which, among other things a bank guarantee had been issued. The parties fell out, attempts were made at calling the guarantee and an ICC arbitration ensued. The Arbitral Tribunal (Dr. Daniel Busse, Dr. Gert Thoenen and Dr. Philipp Habegger as chairman) issued a partial award on April 9, 2008.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_224/2008
Original language: 
German
Published: 
27 ASA Bull 290 (2009)
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
Appellant: 
PDF version of the translation: 
Chairman: 
Arbitrator (s):