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 115 result(s)
February 7, 2017

It deals with the recurrent issue of jurisdiction, yet this time not the jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) but rather of the previous instance (in casu the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber, DRC).

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_492/2016
Original language: 
German
Published: 
35 ASA Bull 452 (2017)
Parties
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
Chairman: 
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: 
February 7, 2020

In the early 2000s, the X.________ Republic (purportedly, the Czech Republic) put into place a beneficial framework designed to incentivize investment in and utilization of renewable energy. When the framework turned out to be even more successful than it ever forecasted, the Republic began to scale back parts of the program, particularly the parts that related to a feed-in tariff, or FiT. It also introduced a “solar tax”.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_80/2018
Original language: 
French
Parties
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
March 17, 2011

The case involved a dispute between several chess federations (the French, German, Swiss, Ukrainian and American Federations and a company named Karpov 2010 Inc.) in the framework of the election campaign for the new chairman of the Fédération Internationale des Echecs (“FIE”). Kirsan Ilyumzhinov’s candidacy was opposed by Anatoly Karpov (the former was subsequently elected).

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_600/2010
Original language: 
French
Published: 
30 ASA Bull 119 (2012)
Parties
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
July 15, 2015

The case involved a dispute between a football club and several players in a country that does not appear on the decision of the Federal Tribunal but should be easily ascertained by those interested in sport matters.

 

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_246/2014
Original language: 
French
Parties
Counsel
Appellant: 
PDF version of the translation: 
November 25, 2020

Pursuant to the Germany–Czech BIT, an investor, A.________, made a request for arbitration under the UNCITRAL Rules. A Chair was selected by the party-appointed arbitrators, and the Arbitral Tribunal was constituted. In February 2020, the Arbitral Tribunal asked the parties to submit certain documents and respond to questions. The Defendant complied but A.________ requested and was granted several extensions and finally supplied documentation in June.

 

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_563/2020
Original language: 
German
Parties
Counsel
Appellant: 
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: 
July 8, 2014

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_565/2013
Original language: 
German
Published: 
140 III 433
Parties
Counsel
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
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: 

Pages