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)
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
May 18, 2020

Following the announcement of a program of incentives for the construction of low-income housing devised by the government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, an agreement between a Turkish construction company, A._______, and three Iranian entities developed a housing construction project to take advantage of the favourable program.

 

A dispute arose and an Arbitral Tribunal was constituted under the UNCITRAL rules, with its seat in Geneva.

 

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_418/2019
Original language: 
German
Published: 
38 ASA Bull 690 (2020)
Parties
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
July 15, 2013

The case involved a contract for the acquisition of the shares of a Swiss bank. The contract contained an arbitration clause providing for arbitration in Geneva under the Swiss Rules. A dispute arose and the purchaser sought damages while the sellers submitted a counterclaim.

 

A three-member Arbitral Tribunal was constituted under the aegis of the Geneva Chamber of Commerce and Industry (arbitrators Peter Böckli and Shelby Dupasquier, with Pierre Tercier as chairman).

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_188/2013
Original language: 
French
Parties
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
Chairman: 
February 9, 2017

The case involved the termination of an employment contract between a professional football player X (the Player) and the club A without cause (alongside clubs B. and C). The FIFA DRC Decision found that the Player and club C. were jointly and severally liable for the payment to A. of EUR 3'100'000, including interest, as compensation for termination of the contract without cause, in accordance with Art. 17(1) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP).

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_690/2016
Original language: 
French
Published: 
35 ASA Bull 670 (2017)
Parties
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
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: 
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: 
November 13, 2020

In 2009, the Bangladeshi government opened up permits to privately-operated power plants. In 2010, the competent authorities concluded a contract with E.E.________, one of the Respondents here, for the supply of power. E.E.________, in turn, concluded several supply contracts with the other Respondents and some additional companies. The Supply Contracts contained an arbitration clause.

 

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_124/2020
Original language: 
German
Parties
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 

Pages