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 445 result(s)
July 20, 2017

This decision, which addresses jurisdictional issues in one of the Yukos cases, is certainly worth reading, even though, in this writer’s opinion, it is completely wrong and will only add to the regrettable confusion that the case law of the Federal Tribunal has created in the last few years with regard to the admissibility of appeals against international “awards” and the consequence of failing to appeal.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_98/2017
Original language: 
French
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
November 2, 2020

Between 1994 and 2005, a Turkish construction company attempted to have outstanding invoices paid for public works projects it had been involved in on the territory of the state of Libya. In 2012, it received a judgment from a court of first instance in Beida, holding the state liable to pay the invoices, plus interest and damages.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_461/2019
Original language: 
German
Parties
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
January 6, 2021

In 2011, C.________ concluded three agency contracts with A.________, a company based in Panama. Initially intended to last just 12 months, the relationship persisted into 2015. Between 2010 and 2013, E.________, an employee of C._________, was, unbeknownst to its own employer, receiving kickbacks for the renewal of the contracts from A.________’s parent company. C.________ only learned of the kickbacks in 2017.

 

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_346/2020
Original language: 
French
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
November 25, 2020

Pursuant to the Germany–Czech BIT, an investor, A.________, made a request for arbitration under the UNCITRAL Rules. A Chair was selected by the party-appointed arbitrators, and the Arbitral Tribunal was constituted. In February 2020, the Arbitral Tribunal asked the parties to submit certain documents and respond to questions. The Defendant complied but A.________ requested and was granted several extensions and finally supplied documentation in June.

 

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_563/2020
Original language: 
German
Parties
Counsel
Appellant: 
PDF version of the translation: 
April 3, 2017

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_470/2016
Original language: 
German
Published: 
35 ASA Bull 693 (2017)
Parties
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
Arbitrator (s): 
April 21, 2020

The parties to this doping-related dispute included a former Russian rower (the Athlete), his international federation, his national antidoping organization, and WADA. Following a CAS award that imposed a four-year suspension on the Athlete, the latter filed a motion to set aside the CAS award for alleged violation of his right to be heard.

 

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_422/2019
Original language: 
French
Parties
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
August 14, 2018

This case involved a contract of employment between a Bulgarian professional and a Russian football club. The club initially confirmed the contract of employment and two additional agreements but after submitting the player to medical tests and making him attend a training camp, the club informed the player that it could no longer sign he contract due to its quotas for foreign players.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_114/2018
Original language: 
German
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
June 6, 2019

This case involves a professional boxer (the Athlete), WADA, and the Athlete’s national antidoping agency. WADA filed an appeal to the CAS against the federation’s tribunal decision and requested a three-member panel, reserving however its right to request a sole arbitrator if the Athlete failed to pay its share on the advance of costs.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_146/2019
Original language: 
French
Parties
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
October 1, 2020

A dispute arose between two Indian nationals and the Republic of C.________. An Arbitral Tribunal was constituted in accordance with the UNCITRAL rules, under the auspices of the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Its seat was set in Geneva.

 

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_156/2020
Original language: 
French
Parties
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
December 16, 2020

A._________ subcontracted the maritime portion of the construction of a sea terminal to B._________. In the course of the build, A.________ called in bank guarantees, split between USD and local currency (referred to in the anonymized decision as XXX). This forced B.________ to refinance. B.________ then initiated arbitration proceedings under the contract’s arbitration clause on several grounds.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_244/2020
Original language: 
French
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
PDF version of the translation: 
June 18, 2020

A.________ is a producer of manganese ore and concluded a contract with C.________ to market and sell said ore. A dispute arose when the parties were not able to come to an agreement regarding the price at which of one of the deliveries should be sold to the end consumer.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_93/2020
Original language: 
German
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
September 18, 2020

B.________, a Singaporean businessman, and A.________, an Indonesian national, established a company. B.________ held 75% of the share capital, while A._________ held the remainder. When a corruption probe was opened against B.________, making it difficult for the mutually-held company to obtain financing, B.________ and A.________ took action. They executed two agreements – the SPA contract, where B.________ undertook to sell to A.________ his shares in the mutually-held company.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_324/2020
Original language: 
French
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
PDF version of the translation: 
November 13, 2020

In 2009, the Bangladeshi government opened up permits to privately-operated power plants. In 2010, the competent authorities concluded a contract with E.E.________, one of the Respondents here, for the supply of power. E.E.________, in turn, concluded several supply contracts with the other Respondents and some additional companies. The Supply Contracts contained an arbitration clause.

 

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_124/2020
Original language: 
German
Parties
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
July 4, 2019

This decision follows on from a judgment of the Federal Tribunal from 2017 (you can find our translation of that decision here: https://www.swissarbitrationdecisions.com/atf-4a-532-2016).

 

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_462/2018
Original language: 
German
Published: 
37 ASA Bull 649 (2019)
Parties
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
May 18, 2020

Following the announcement of a program of incentives for the construction of low-income housing devised by the government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, an agreement between a Turkish construction company, A._______, and three Iranian entities developed a housing construction project to take advantage of the favourable program.

 

A dispute arose and an Arbitral Tribunal was constituted under the UNCITRAL rules, with its seat in Geneva.

 

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_418/2019
Original language: 
German
Published: 
38 ASA Bull 690 (2020)
Parties
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 

Pages