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 144 result(s)
February 20, 2015

The case involved a request for revision of an arbitral award issued on July 25, 2011. The dispute was about a sponsorship contract between an Italian company and the Spanish company managing a cycling team. The arbitral tribunal (arbitrators Renzo Galfetti and Pietro Moggi with chairman Paolo M. Patocchi) ordered the Italian company to keep paying the amounts in the contract. But it then turned out that one of the members of the cycling team was banned for two years for doping.

 

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_645/2014
Original language: 
Italian
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
PDF version of the translation: 
April 29, 2015

The case involved a dispute between a football club and a player whose employment contract ran between June 2010 and May 2012. However, based on a heart condition known to the club at the outset, the employment relationship was terminated in the spring of 2011.

 

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_70/2015
Original language: 
French
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
PDF version of the translation: 
May 21, 2015

In a dispute between an Italian football club and an English company based on the acquisition by the English company of the economic rights of an Argentine professional football player, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) accepted jurisdiction and its Panel (chairman Ricardo de Buen, with arbitrators José Juan Pinto and Massimo Coccia) awarded the English company an amount of EUR 9’400’000, which was then challenged in the Federal Tribunal by way of a Civil law appeal.

 

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_634/2014
Original language: 
French
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
PDF version of the translation: 
Chairman: 
February 17, 2016

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_494/2015
Original language: 
German
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
October 28, 2015

The case involved the division of an estate, which gave rise to a dispute between the heirs. In March 2011, they had executed an out-of-court settlement, which provided for arbitration in Geneva under a foreign law not specified in the opinion.

 

A three-members arbitral tribunal was constituted when a dispute arose. The names of the arbitrators are not known. The arbitral tribunal issued a final award in March 2015.

 

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_218/2015
Original language: 
French
Published: 
34 ASA Bull 165 (2016)
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
PDF version of the translation: 
July 8, 2016

The case involved an arbitration in Lugano in which the arbitrators (chairman Francesco Trezzini with arbitrators Henry Peter and Gianluca Airaghi) appointed an expert whilst giving the parties the opportunity to submit their own expert reports.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_259/2015
Original language: 
Italian
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
September 7, 2018

The opinion is extremely interesting and it has been the object of much comment lately. Our team has therefore made sure that an English version would be made available to the arbitration community on a priority basis and we are happy to put it online today.

The case has already been described in an article by Sebastian Perry in The Global Arbitration Review and our friends at Thouvenin also mentioned it in their recent issue. Both are attached for ease of reference.

Case information

Docket number: 
5A_942/2017
Original language: 
German
Parties
Counsel
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
June 6, 2016

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_64/2016
Original language: 
German
Parties
Respondent: 
Counsel
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
April 29, 2020

This dispute arose between a national football federation, two players (the Appellants) and the African Football Confederation (CAF, Respondent) over the African Cup of Nations U17 (CAN U17), an African football tournament organized at the continental level for players under 17, whose first and second teams qualify for the FIFA U-17 World Cup.

 

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_548/2019
Original language: 
French
Parties
Counsel
March 25, 2020

This is a translation of considerable interest, as it marks the first time the Federal Tribunal has annulled an award in an investment arbitration. 

 

A.________ is a Spanish company incorporated by its parent, C.________, in 2011. At its incorporation, C.________ made a contribution of all of the shares C.________ owned in D.________ SA. D.________ was the group’s Venezuelan subsidiary. 

 

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_306/2019
Original language: 
French
Published: 
38 ASA Bull 998 (2020)
Parties
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: 
March 17, 2009

On March 17, 2009, the Swiss Federal Tribunal issued an opinion in the matter of the Azerbaijan Wrestling Federation (“AWF”) v. the World Anti-Doping Agency (“WADA”) and the International Federation of Associated Wrestling Styles (“FILA”).

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_416/2008
Original language: 
German
Published: 
28 ASA Bull 367 (2010)
also see 3 SwissIntArbRep 219 (2009)
Parties
Counsel
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
PDF version of the translation: 
Chairman: 

Pages