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 450 result(s)
July 24, 2020

Under a Gas Sales Purchase Contract (GSPC) concluded in 2001, A.________ undertook to supply gas to B.________. Following several postponements, C.________ became a party to the GSPC in 2003. A.________ never supplied gas to B.________ or C.________. 

 

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_300/2020
Original language: 
French
Published: 
39 ASA Bull 201 (2021)
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
August 27, 2020

A German pasta maker, A.________ and an American distributor, B.________ agreed on an exclusive sales agreement for a number of countries in early 2013. B.________, in turn, initially sold contracted products to a US distributor E.________, but at the end of 2013, apparently concluded an exclusive distribution contract for the United States with D.________.

 

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_36/2020
Original language: 
French
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
March 15, 2021

A typical employment-related dispute between a football player and a club was first decided by the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) and, on appeal by both parties, by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). During the CAS consolidated proceedings, the Club’s representative reserved its rights with respect to the rejection of its requests for production of documents.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_438/2020
Original language: 
German
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
Appellant: 
PDF version of the translation: 
January 27, 2021

This judgment raises an interesting issue of principle in sports arbitration, and more specifically the “forced” character of arbitration in sports-related disputes.

 

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_600/2020
Original language: 
French
Parties
Appellant: 
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: 
February 23, 2021

In 1997, A.________ (purportedly, the Kingdom of Spain) established a regime by decree to promote renewable energy sources. Several companies made substantial investments to take advantage of the favorable Feed-in-Tariff in the decree. Starting in 2010, A.________ began to roll back the regime and in 2013, a new regulation replaced it entirely.

 

May 7, 2021

B.________ (Claimant, Respondent) initiated an arbitration against A.________ (Defendant, Appellant), relating to the question of whether a Sale and Purchase Agreement had been validly rescinded. This arbitration was also connected to an award from 2017 (referred to in the decision as “the previous award”).

 

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_27/2021
Original language: 
German
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
April 1, 2021

Following a dispute regarding the purported termination of two contractual agreements, an arbitration was initiated under the Rules of the Swiss Chambers’ Arbitration Institution (SCAI). A three-member Arbitral Tribunal was constituted, with its seat in Zurich. For the purposes of the Federal proceedings, the specifics of the dispute are largely immaterial. The arbitration proceeded, with procedural rules decided, statements of claim and defense submitted, and a hearing taking place.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_332/2020
Original language: 
German
Published: 
39 ASA Bull 688 (2021)
Parties
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
April 8, 2021

In the early 2000s, Turkish investors established two cement factories in the Syrian Arab Republic, and made plans to build a third. In 2011, when the civil war broke out, the investors repatriated upper management and suspended business activities. In 2012, Syria withdrew from the areas in which the factories were located and Kurdish forces assumed control. At that point, the Turkish investors lost any use of and control over the facilities and they essentially became inaccessible. 

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_516/2020
Original language: 
French
Parties
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
March 15, 2021

This is a relatively interesting case related to the calculation of time limits to file an appeal in accordance with the CAS Code and the consequences of the alleged non-compliance with such time limits.

 

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_626/2020
Original language: 
French
Published: 
39 ASA Bull 760 (2021)
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
August 3, 2021

In this football-related procedure the Appellant – represented by legal counsel – had sent its statement of appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport by e-mail but failed to send it by courier within the time limit, invoking force majeure due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The appeal was declared inadmissible by the CAS Division President.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_324/2021
Original language: 
French
Published: 
39 ASA Bull 39 878 (2021)
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
Appellant: 
PDF version of the translation: 
August 3, 2021

In this football-related procedure the Appellant – represented by legal counsel – had sent its statement of appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport by e-mail but failed to send it by courier within the time limit, invoking force majeure due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The appeal was declared inadmissible by the CAS Division President.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_324/2021
Original language: 
French
Published: 
39 ASA Bull 39 878 (2021)
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
Appellant: 
PDF version of the translation: 
February 15, 2021

An employment dispute between a professional coach (the Coach) and a national football federation (the Federation) arose after the termination of the Coach’s contract following his refusal to select a certain player for an international match due to match-fixing allegations of the latter. The FIFA Player’s Status Committee (PSC) issued a decision against the Federation ordering the latter to pay damages for breach of contract, decision that was confirmed by the CAS on appeal.

 

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_660/2020
Original language: 
German
Parties
Respondent: 
Counsel
Respondent: 
PDF version of the translation: 
July 19, 2021

A.________ and company B.________ negotiated a contract for the sale of helicopters. At the time of signing, B.________’s representatives signed the contract at A.________’s armed forces officers’ club, at which point A.________’s representatives took the contract signed by B.________ so it could be signed by A.________’s head of state (referred to here as ‘His Majesty’).

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_174/2021
Original language: 
French
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
June 15, 2021

A dispute arose within a corporate group governed by a Subscription and Shareholders’ Deed, subject to English law, after the CEO was unilaterally fired and A.________, a member of the family controlling the majority shareholder, installed himself in the position.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_530/2020
Original language: 
French
Parties
Respondent: 
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 

Pages