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 11 result(s)
December 12, 2019

These two decisions, 4A_244/2019 and 4A_246/2019, concern the final awards in two arbitrations under the UNCITRAL Rules before the same PCA Arbitral Tribunal (Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler as Chair, with Brigitte Stern and Daniel Price as co-arbitrators), with its seat in Geneva.

 

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_244/2019
Original language: 
German
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
October 17, 2019

A trivial labor law dispute between a football player and his club was initially brought by the Player before the judicial instances of the national football federation (the Algerian Football Federation, AFF) and subsequently before the CAS.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_268/2019
Original language: 
French
Parties
Counsel
Chairman: 
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: 
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: 
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 16, 2019

B.________, a Turkish company, and A.________, a Swiss company, concluded a contract in 2012 that contained an arbitration clause in favor of an ad hoc arbitral tribunal with its seat in Wollerau/SZ.. A dispute arose and in June 2018, B.________ applied to the Höfe District Court for the appointment of Michael Lazopoulos as its party arbitrator. It also asked that court to appoint an arbitrator for A.________, as it had failed to put forward a name. 

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_292/2019
Original language: 
German
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
December 12, 2019

These two decisions, 4A_244/2019 and 4A_246/2019, concern the final awards in two arbitrations under the UNCITRAL Rules before the same PCA Arbitral Tribunal (Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler as Chair, with Brigitte Stern and Daniel Price as co-arbitrators), with its seat in Geneva.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_246/2019
Original language: 
German
Parties
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
June 19, 2019

The arbitration at issue concerned a joint-venture partnership between the Claimant, a Turkish company in the energy field, and the Respondent, a Spanish company. The partnership was intended to explore the construction and operation of seven hydropower plants in Turkey and was governed by a series of agreements between the parties, including a Share Purchase Agreement (“SPA”). 

 

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_628/2018
Original language: 
German
Parties
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
November 13, 2019

A Turkish company, C.________ entered into a contract with the General Directorate of Security of the Turkish Ministry of the Interior to supply armored vehicles. Its subcontractor, B.________, entered into a contract with an Israeli company, A.________, to develop, design, manufacture and deliver 60 armored vehicles. The contract specified a delivery date, though that was partially contingent on B.________ making certain parts available to A.________ in a timely manner. 

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_294/2019, 4A_296/2019
Original language: 
German
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
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):