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 430 result(s)
April 29, 2020

This dispute arose between a national football federation, two players (the Appellants) and the African Football Confederation (CAF, Respondent) over the African Cup of Nations U17 (CAN U17), an African football tournament organized at the continental level for players under 17, whose first and second teams qualify for the FIFA U-17 World Cup.

 

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_548/2019
Original language: 
French
Parties
Counsel
April 29, 2020

This dispute arose between a national football federation, two players (the Appellants) and the African Football Confederation (CAF, Respondent) over the African Cup of Nations U17 (CAN U17), an African football tournament organized at the continental level for players under 17, whose first and second teams qualify for the FIFA U-17 World Cup.

 

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_550/2019
Original language: 
French
Parties
Counsel
July 29, 2020

The underlying dispute arose between the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) and one of its members, the Albanian professional football club KS Skënderbeu (“the Club”). Based on UEFA’s betting fraud detection system, UEFA had initially denied the Club’s admission to the 2016/2017 season of the Champions League. In its Award rendered in 2016 (CAS 2016/A/4650), a Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) Panel upheld the decision of the UEFA Appeals Body.

 

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_462/2019
Original language: 
French
Parties
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
December 22, 2020

Chinese elite swimmer Sun Yang has managed to draw the attention of sports arbitration practitioners in recent years: after the first CAS public hearing following the ECtHR Pechstein judgment and several motions filed with the Swiss Federal Tribunal during the CAS proceedings, this important judgment constitutes the first in the history of the CAS where the Federal Tribunal has annulled a CAS award for bias of its Panel Chair, Mr.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_318/2020
Original language: 
French
Parties
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
September 4, 2019

This decision will be of interest principally to CAS arbitration practitioners. 

 

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_272/2019
Original language: 
French
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
March 25, 2020

This is a translation of considerable interest, as it marks the first time the Federal Tribunal has annulled an award in an investment arbitration. 

 

A.________ is a Spanish company incorporated by its parent, C.________, in 2011. At its incorporation, C.________ made a contribution of all of the shares C.________ owned in D.________ SA. D.________ was the group’s Venezuelan subsidiary. 

 

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_306/2019
Original language: 
French
Published: 
38 ASA Bull 998 (2020)
Parties
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
Published: 
38 ASA Bull 764 (2020)
Parties
Counsel
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
PDF version of the translation: 
Chairman: 
July 31, 2019

C.________ had requested the payment of a fee following the brokering of a settlement agreement with a state petroleum company on behalf of A.________ and B._________. The latter companies refused to pay and an arbitration with its seat in Geneva was initiated under the Swiss Rules, before three arbitrators. C.________ partially prevailed, and the Defendants appealed to the Federal Tribunal, citing violations of their right to be heard and a lack of equal treatment of the parties.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_74/2019
Original language: 
German
Published: 
38 ASA Bull 988 (2020)
Parties
Respondent: 
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
September 24, 2019

A._______ was a joint venture formed under Turkish law by B.________ (holding a 67% interest) and C.________ (holding a 33% interest). D.________, was an independent entity organised under Libyan law and formed by an Act intended to further a large infrastructure project intended to bring fresh water from the south of the country to the more populous north.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_636/2018
Original language: 
German
Published: 
38 ASA Bull 726 (2020)
Parties
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
Chairman: 
Arbitrator (s): 
January 6, 2020

In this overly publicized and quite interesting case, involving the Chinese Swimmer Sun Yang (the Athlete) and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), the Athlete was accused of an antidoping rule violation due to the unsuccessful attempt to take blood and urine samples during an unannounced test carried out at the Athlete’s home in September 2018. Even though the Swimmer was cleared by his federation’s (i.e.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_287/2019
Original language: 
French
Published: 
38 ASA Bull 212 (2020)
Parties
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
January 6, 2020

In 2015, B.________ sent out a bulletin on a competitive bidding procedure for the supply of TFT displays. It contained the proposed contractual terms (the "corporate agreement" or “CA”), the General Terms and Conditions of Purchase (“GTC”), and Quality Assurance Agreement (“QAA”). A.________ was ultimately awarded the contract, and a contract award was signed. While negotiations on certain points of disagreement regarding the CA were ongoing, the parties went ahead and signed the QAA.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_342/2019
Original language: 
German
Published: 
38 ASA Bull 440 (2020)
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
October 28, 2019

The background case involves the celebrity swimmer Sun Yang, who was accused of an anti-doping rule violation due to unsuccessful attempt to take blood and urine samples during an unannounced doping control at his house and the subsequent lifting of charges by the FINA Anti-Doping Commission.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_413/2019
Original language: 
French
Published: 
38 ASA Bull 204 (2020)
Parties
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
January 15, 2019

The judgement is far more interesting for its factual background than for its legal findings; it puts an end to highly publicized legal battle between Alexander Legkov (and several other Russian athletes) and the IOC, which lies at the heart of the so-called “Russian doping scandal”.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_382/2018
Original language: 
French
Parties
Respondent: 
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
Chairman: 
November 16, 2018

This case involves the well-known (at least, to all football aficionados) case of the Peruvian football player Paolo Guerrero. He was sanctioned for an anti-doping rule violation with a suspension of 14 months by the CAS, under the rather unusual circumstances of consuming tea with coca leaves. The CAS Award was rendered in appeal against a decision of the FIFA Appeals Committee that had initially suspended the Player for six months (see also CAS 2018/A/5571).

 

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_560/2018
Original language: 
French
Parties
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
August 28, 2017

A company and a state contracted over four tourism projects and when a dispute arose the company invoked the arbitration clause. An ICC Arbitral Tribunal with its seat in Geneva was constituted. An interim award found that the respondent state had in fact breached the contract between the parties and was liable for the failure to execute two of the four projects.

 

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_277/2017
Original language: 
French
Published: 
36 ASA Bull 186 (2018)
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 

Pages