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 40 result(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): 
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: 
November 4, 2014

The case involved a 2013 contract governed by Swiss law between a New York company and a Swiss company for the construction of a Turkish bath in a Gstaad chalet. As the price of the hammam was substantial – some USD 31 million – the contract provided for payment in various installments and contained an arbitration clause in favour of  the Swiss Chambers’ Arbitration Institution rules (Swiss Rules) with venue in Geneva.

 

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_446/2014
Original language: 
French
Published: 
35 ASA Bull 370 (2017)
Parties
Appellant: 
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
Chairman: 
June 17, 2015

A professional football club was found liable severally with one of its players for the financial consequences of the termination without cause of the player’s previous employment contract with another club. In February 2013, the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber ordered the player and the club severally to compensate the other club.

 

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_124/2015
Original language: 
French
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
September 15, 2015

The case involved three companies from France, the United Kingdom and Russia.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_136/2015
Original language: 
French
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
June 20, 2016

The dispute concerned two contracts governed by Swiss law and containing the same arbitration clause, the purpose of which was for one party to invest in the shares of a certain fund through another party, who may or may not have represented that the fund’s custodial bank was guaranteeing the capital of the investment.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_173/2016
Original language: 
German
Published: 
35 ASA Bull 634 (2017)
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
January 6, 2021

In 2011, C.________ concluded three agency contracts with A.________, a company based in Panama. Initially intended to last just 12 months, the relationship persisted into 2015. Between 2010 and 2013, E.________, an employee of C._________, was, unbeknownst to its own employer, receiving kickbacks for the renewal of the contracts from A.________’s parent company. C.________ only learned of the kickbacks in 2017.

 

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_346/2020
Original language: 
French
Parties
Appellant: 
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: 
July 24, 2020

Under a Gas Sales Purchase Contract (GSPC) concluded in 2001, A.________ undertook to supply gas to B.________. Following several postponements, C.________ became a party to the GSPC in 2003. A.________ never supplied gas to B.________ or C.________. 

 

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_300/2020
Original language: 
French
Published: 
39 ASA Bull 201 (2021)
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
January 27, 2021

This judgment raises an interesting issue of principle in sports arbitration, and more specifically the “forced” character of arbitration in sports-related disputes.

 

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_600/2020
Original language: 
French
Parties
Appellant: 
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
October 29, 2014

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_253/2014
Original language: 
Italian
Parties
Appellant: 
Counsel
August 3, 2016

At issue was an award issued by the Court of Arbitration for Sport in the matter of a Luxembourg racing cyclist who entered into a self-employment agreement in 2010 with a company managing a cycling team. Furthermore, an agreement on image rights gave the team the right to exploit the cyclist’s image against compensation. When he was found positive in a doping control during the 2012 Tour de France, the cyclist left the competition whilst continuing to train with the team.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_202/2016
Original language: 
French
Published: 
35 ASA Bulletin 648 (2017)
Parties
Appellant: 
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
June 18, 2020

A.________ is a producer of manganese ore and concluded a contract with C.________ to market and sell said ore. A dispute arose when the parties were not able to come to an agreement regarding the price at which of one of the deliveries should be sold to the end consumer.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_93/2020
Original language: 
German
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
October 16, 2012

The case involved an appeal to the Federal Tribunal by a football federation against an award on costs issued by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on April 27, 2012. The CAS Panel was composed of Romano Subioto, chairman, with Ulrich Haas and Allan Sullivan as arbitrators.

 

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_314/2012
Original language: 
French
Published: 
32 ASA Bull 646 (2014)
Parties
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
Chairman: 
Arbitrator (s): 
June 30, 2014

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_562/2013
Original language: 
German
Parties
Appellant: 
Counsel
Appellant: 
Respondent: 

Pages