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)
March 6, 2008

This decision is dated March 6, 2008 and its object was an appeal against an award issued by an Arbitral tribunal composed of three arbitrators, Dr. Cesare Jermini, Chairman, Prof. Sergio Carbone and Mr Charles Poncet. Since I was one of the arbitrators, I would rather not comment the decision, for reasons you will understand.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_500/2007
Original language: 
French
Published: 
27 ASA Bull 94 (2009). also see 2 SwissIntArbRep 133 (2008)
134 ATF III 260 (2008)
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
Chairman: 
March 14, 2008

The case involved a petition to the Federal Tribunal for the revision of an international award issued by Swiss arbitrator Martin Bernet in Zurich on February 23, 2007. As you know, Swiss case law has determined that the revision of international awards falls within the jurisdiction of the Federal Tribunal. The case is interesting because after the award was issued, the petitioner discovered in its own archives a number of documents, which could have established that bribery had taken place.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_42/2008
Original language: 
German
Published: 
2 SwissIntArbRep 153 (2008)
134 BGE III 286 (2008)
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
Arbitrator (s): 
February 29, 2008

The case involved an appeal against an award issued in Zurich on September 28, 2008. The Arbitral tribunal (Pierre A. Karrer, Daniel Girsberger and Daniel Wehrli, chairman) denied jurisdiction in part and this was the main object of the appeal. The Court confirmed that an award denying jurisdiction in part is final to that extent, whilst the same award, to the extent that it accepted jurisdiction in part, is an interlocutory award.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_452/2007
Original language: 
German
Published: 
26 ASA Bull 765 (2008)
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
PDF version of the translation: 
Chairman: 
February 28, 2013

The case involved a weightlifter who tested positive for Boldenone (an anabolic steroid) and was ruled ineligible for four years, which prevented him from competing anywhere.

 

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_576/2012
Original language: 
French
Published: 
32 ASA Bull 543 (2014)
Parties
Counsel
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
PDF version of the translation: 
Chairman: 
September 27, 2016

This judgment was the last step in a long series of proceedings over the widely known supplement program of the Australian Rules Football club Essendon (“the Club”). The 34 players (the Appellants) were all professional players for the Club in the Australian Football League (AFL). The Club had introduced a program of supplements for its players in September 2011, administering injections and allegedly using a prohibited substance.

December 9, 2008

The decision dealt with the New York Convention and not with PILA stricto senso but I thought it would be of interest to most of you anyway.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_403/2008
Original language: 
French
Published: 
27 ASA Bull 530 (2009)
135 ATF III 136 (2008)
also see 3 SwissIntArbRep 259 (2009)
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
May 29, 2013

The case involved a transfer from Uruguay to Spain and the Spanish club acquiring the player failed to pay the various amounts due to the transferring club. The FIFA Players’ Status Committee ordered the payment and then the FIFA Disciplinary Committee imposed a sanction on the Spanish club.

 

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_620/2012
Original language: 
German
Published: 
32 Asa Bull 57 (2014)
Parties
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
October 9, 2013

The case involved a 2005 contract for the delivery of machinery, also granting an exclusive licence for the exploitation of a specific technology in several countries of the Middle East. The parties were Portuguese, Swiss and Jordanian. The production line was delivered in 2005.

The contract was governed by Swiss law and contained an arbitration clause. After a dispute concerning the production line, the parties agreed on an Addendum, again with the same arbitration clause.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_688/2012, 4A_126/2013
Original language: 
French
Parties
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
March 17, 2011

The case involved a dispute between several chess federations (the French, German, Swiss, Ukrainian and American Federations and a company named Karpov 2010 Inc.) in the framework of the election campaign for the new chairman of the Fédération Internationale des Echecs (“FIE”). Kirsan Ilyumzhinov’s candidacy was opposed by Anatoly Karpov (the former was subsequently elected).

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_600/2010
Original language: 
French
Published: 
30 ASA Bull 119 (2012)
Parties
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
February 21, 2013

The case involved a dispute between a group of claimants and two companies pursuant to a share purchase agreement. The contract was governed by Italian law and contained an ICC arbitration clause with venue in Geneva.

 

Arbitration proceedings were initiated and the Claimants sought the joint condemnation of the two Defendants to pay certain amounts still due under the Share Purchase Agreement.

 

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_552/2012
Original language: 
German
Parties
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
Chairman: 
October 16, 2003

Although the case dates back to 2003 and the translations start from 2008 only, with a few exceptions, this case justified an exception in view of its great interest as to the issue of an arbitration clause extended to an individual who had not signed it but was actively involved in the performance of the contract.

 

The opinion is quite long, but it is very interesting and  constitutes required reading.

Case information

Docket number: 
4P.115/2003
Original language: 
French
Published: 
22 ASA Bull 364 (2004), 129 III 727
Parties
Respondent: 
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
January 22, 2008

The appeal was directed against an ICC award issued by three well known arbitrators, Andreas Reiner (chair), Klaus Sachs and Bernard Hanotiau on October 10, 2007. The venue of the arbitration was Zurich. A previous award had been issued on May 27, 2007 and also appealed. The English version of the opinion of the Federal Tribunal of the same date, January 22, 2008, with regard to the first appeal may also be downloaded from our web site :  4A_244/2007.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_468_2007
Original language: 
French
Published: 
2 SwissIntArbRep 71 (2008)
134 ATF III 186 (2008)
Parties
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
Chairman: 
Arbitrator (s): 
January 22, 2008

Here is a decision of January 22, 2008, which dealt with the somewhat arcane issue of a subsidiary, which was a party to an arbitration clause, but then left the Group of companies involved as a consequence of an MBO. It was argued that by doing so, the former subsidiary would no longer be a party to the arbitration agreement. The argument was rejected (see pages 6 and 7).

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_244/2007
Original language: 
German
Published: 
26 ASA Bull 549 (2008)
also see 2 SwissIntArbRep 45 (2008)
Parties
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
Chairman: