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 8 result(s)
May 14, 2001

At issue in the Fomento case was lis pendens and more precisely whether or not international arbitrators sitting in Switzerland had to stay the arbitration when a state court abroad was seized of the matter before the arbitration started. Fomento, a Spanish company, had been retained as a contractor by a Panamian company, Colon Container Terminals (“CCT”) to work on the construction of a port terminal. A dispute arose. Fomento filed a claim against CCT in Panama.

Case information

Docket number: 
4P.37/2001
Original language: 
French
Published: 
19 ASA Bull 555 (2001)
127 ATF III 279 (2001)
Parties
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
Chairman: 
December 16, 2020

A._________ subcontracted the maritime portion of the construction of a sea terminal to B._________. In the course of the build, A.________ called in bank guarantees, split between USD and local currency (referred to in the anonymized decision as XXX). This forced B.________ to refinance. B.________ then initiated arbitration proceedings under the contract’s arbitration clause on several grounds.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_244/2020
Original language: 
French
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
PDF version of the translation: 
February 5, 2014

The case involved a Turkish company and a Belgian company and the performance of some work on a compressor station in Turkey. A contract was signed in 2007, governed by Turkish law but with an ICC arbitration clause, with the venue in Geneva.

 

As a dispute arose for the payment of the services performed, an arbitration was initiated in November 2011 and Anne-Carole Cremades was appointed as sole arbitrator by the ICC.

 

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_446/2013
Original language: 
French
Published: 
32 ASA Bull 367 (2014)
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
July 11, 2017

The case involved two contracts for consulting services relating to the preparation and submission of tenders in the railway sector. The consultants were partially paid, but payments were stopped when, according to the tendering companies, insufficient proof of work was supplied and concerns arose that continuing to pay the consultants would risk criminal sanctions.

 

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_50/2017
Original language: 
French
Published: 
36 ASA Bull 714 (2018)
Parties
Respondent: 
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
March 31, 2009

French speakers subscribing to arbitrage-adr@yahoogroupes.fr will remember that Domitille Baizeau commented the decision in late May and readers of Global Arbitration Review may have noticed Philip Landolt's criticism of the decision in 4 Issue 5 Global Arbitration Review 30-32 (2009). Whilst appreciating the points he made, I do not fully agree with Philip's view as will be clear from the following.

December 10, 2007

The ENUSA decision of the Federal Tribunal, which is the Supreme Court of Switzerland, related to a dispute between a Spanish company and an American company arising from a Marketing Agreement of August 1, 2003. The Marketing Agreement had been concluded between SHS CERAMICAS S.A., a Spanish company, which subsequently assigned its claim to ENUSA Industrias Avanzadas S.A. and LIPO CHEMICALS Inc. of New Jersey.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_352/2007
Original language: 
French
Published: 
26 ASA Bull 322 (2008)
also see 2 SwissIntArbRep 29 (2008)
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
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: 
May 24, 2013

The case involved a football club in Mexico and a Brazilian player. A dispute as to the player’s compensation resulted in a decision of the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber in November 2010, holding that it did not have jurisdiction, whereupon the player filed a claim with the Mexican Conciliation and Resolution of Controversies Commission (“CRCC”). On July 26, 2011, the CRCC found that the claim was time-barred under applicable Mexican law.

 

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_476/2012
Original language: 
German
Published: 
32 Asa Bull 148 (2014)
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: