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 9 result(s)
December 14, 2017

This is the well known case of Horthel Systems BV v. Poland, initiated under the 1992 Netherlands-Poland BIT. Horthel sought damages on the basis of articles 3(1) (Fair and equitable treatment) and 5 (Deprivation of investment without compensation and discrimination). At issue was the (modified) tax regime applied by the host state.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_157/2017
Original language: 
French
Parties
Appellant: 
Counsel
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
PDF version of the translation: 
Chairman: 
May 30, 2016

Case information

Docket number: 
4F_5/2016, 4F_7/2016
Original language: 
German
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
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: 
April 25, 2017

While the arbitration itself was born from a fascinating tripartite contract dispute with its roots inthe political upheaval following the so-called “Arab Spring,” the Federal Tribunal’s decision is of average interest only, as the Court was, once again, inclined to reiterate its narrow scope of review on the “right to be heard” (due process) in international arbitration.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_34/2016
Original language: 
French
Published: 
36 ASA Bull 996 (2018)
Parties
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
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: 
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: 
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: 
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: