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 5, 2008

The opinion is quite interesting, as you will see. For one thing, the appeal was granted in part, which does not happen very often and caused it to be reported on the web site of the Global Arbitration Review on April 22nd (see enclosed article). The case involved whether or not a sole arbitrator sitting in Switzerland had jurisdiction on three parties not having formally signed the arbitration clause, in view of an other closely related contract signed the same day.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_376/2008
Original language: 
Italian
Published: 
27 ASA Bull 745 (2009)
also see 3 SwissIntArbRep 157 (2009)
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
PDF version of the translation: 
Arbitrator (s): 
January 9, 2009

Dodô v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) and World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), to which Hansjörg Stutzer referred in his criticism of the Busch decision, involved the Brazilian player Ricardo Dodô . He tested positive after a random doping check in June 2007 and was suspended for 120 days by the Brazilian Football Confederation (CBF).

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_460/2008
Original language: 
German
Published: 
27 ASA Bull 540 (2009)
also see 3 SwissIntArbRep 41 (2009)
Parties
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
Chairman: 
November 6, 2009

The decision is an interesting one because the Federal Tribunal annulled the jurisdictional award issued by the CAS on June 23, 2009. Those of you who receive Hansjörg Stutzer’s excellent newsletter will have read his comments and the case is most likely to be discussed in further legal writing in the months ahead.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_358/2009
Original language: 
German
Published: 
30 ASA Bull 166 (2011)
also see 3 SwissIntArbRep 495 (2009)
Parties
Appellant: 
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
Chairman: 
June 3, 2015

The case involved a dispute between a Dutch foundation, an American company and various other players, arising from an investment agreement allegedly breached by one of the parties. The state court in California was seized first and this produced a default judgment in 2007 ordering the restitution of the amount invested and awarding punitive damages.

 

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_676/2014
Original language: 
French
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
Appellant: 
PDF version of the translation: 
Chairman: 
January 22, 2018

The dispute, a typical one in the field of professional football, arose from the conclusion of an exclusive agency agreement for the period of two years between Player A (the Appellant) and the former football Agent B (the Respondent), who was licensed by the Argentinean Football Association (AFA). The agency agreement provided for compensation of 10% of the Appellant’s earned income payable to the Respondent.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_432/2017
Original language: 
German
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
July 7, 2014

The case involved two contracts governed by Romanian law between a French company and a Romanian state company for the restoration work on a Romanian highway.

 

The contracts included the FIDIC General Conditions and when a dispute arose in 2011, the French company stated that it would seize the Dispute Adjudication Board (“DAB”) contemplated by the FIDIC General Conditions.

 

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_124/2014
Original language: 
French
Published: 
32 ASA Bull 826(2014)
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
August 28, 2014

Pursuant to a first set of contracts, a group of parties agreed that any disputes arising from the contracts would be governed by Swiss law and adjudicated by “the arbitration committee to be established in Basel (Switzerland).” The arbitration was to take place in German. According to other contracts entered into simultaneously (or about), however, jurisdiction was to be in the state courts of various countries.

 

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_74/2014
Original language: 
German
Published: 
33 ASA Bull 107 (2015) BGE 140 III 477
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
Chairman: 
January 24, 2017

The case involved a purchase agreement for a packing machine governed by Swiss law, containing a somewhat pathological arbitration clause providing for arbitration by “the International Chamber of Commerce of Geneva”,  yet under ICC Rules.

 
Arbitration was initiated by the Purchaser in 2014. The Respondent raised a jurisdictional defense in addition to its submissions on the merits.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_672/2016
Original language: 
German
Published: 
36 ASA Bull 145 (2018)
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
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 25, 2010

Considering the quantity of excellent advanced programs in international arbitration, let alone the innumerable seminars and programs to which we are constantly invited, one would have thought that blatantly pathological arbitration clauses were a thing of the past.

 

This opinion shows that pathological clauses still exist and that they continue to occasionally cause havoc.

 

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_279/2010
Original language: 
German
Published: 
29 ASA Bull 129 (2011)
Parties
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
Arbitrator (s): 
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):