Swiss Arbitration Decisions

Use thefull text search
or/and
Filteryour search
Use double-quotes to match a sentence or a date. Format dates as follows: "month dd, yyyy". (eg.: "february 23, 2007")
Found 9 result(s)
Federal Tribunal affirms jurisdiction of arbitral tribunal following challenge to interim award in investor-state arbitration
December 11, 2018

X.________, a German telecommunications company, acquired shares in A.________, an Indian company that was created to implement a government-organized project to build a communications platform in India, made possible by the utilization of satellites to be built and launched by the Indian Space Research Organisation. X.________ acquired the shares through its wholly-owned subsidiary, X.________ Asia Pty Ltd. 

 

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_65/2018
Original language: 
French
Published: 
37 ASA Bull 805 (2019)
Parties
Appellant: 
The Republic of India
Respondent: 
X.__ AG
Counsel
Appellant: 
Legler Thomas
Kramer Michael
Pellaton Nicolas
Respondent: 
Hochstrasser Daniel
Burlet-Fuchs Simone
PDF version of the translation: 
PDF icon SIAD - 4A_65-2018 of 11 December 2018.pdf
Claim of incorrect factual findings in the award - rejected
April 8, 2009

The case involved a consulting agreement, which led to arbitration in Zurich. The sole arbitrator (Swiss lawyer Martin Bernet, a highly regarded arbitrator) assumed jurisdiction in 2005 and also held that the consulting agreement was valid in a subsequent award in 2007. New evidence was discovered and a request for revision was filed in 2008. The Federal Tribunal rejected the request for revision on March 14, 2008.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_69/2009
Original language: 
German
Published: 
28 ASA Bull 124 (2010)
also see 3 SwissIntArbRep 205 (2009)
Parties
Appellant: 
X.__ AG
Respondent: 
Y.__
Counsel
Appellant: 
Rüegg Erich
Bieger Alain
Respondent: 
Habegger Philipp
Rappold Elena
PDF version of the translation: 
PDF icon 8 avril 2009 4A 69 2009.pdf
Arbitrator (s): 
Bernet Martin
Interpretation of the facts by the arbitral tribunal regarding its jurisdiction - review by the Federal Tribunal
June 9, 2009

On November 6, 2001, INFRONT SPORT AND MEDIA AG (“INFRONT”), a Swiss company specializing in the marketing of advertising rights in the field of sports and the Belarus Football Federation (“BFF”) entered into a contract giving INFRONT certain broadcasting and advertising rights for the home plays of the national Belarus football team between 2002 and 2007.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_94/2009
Original language: 
German
Published: 
28 ASA Bull 352 (2010)
Parties
Appellant: 
X.__ AG
Respondent: 
Federation Y.__
Counsel
Appellant: 
Dallafior Roberto
Respondent: 
Veit Marc
Meier Fabian
Arbitrator (s): 
Berger Bernhard
Jurisdictional objection partially upheld by the Federal Tribunal. When a jurisdictional defense based on the arbitration agreement is raised before a state court and the arbitral tribunal has its seat in Switzerland, the state court’s power of review is limited
August 6, 2012

The case involved an asset manager in Zurich and a German lady, who became his client. There was an arbitration clause and the contract between the parties contemplated that a foundation would be constituted in Panama. That foundation would in its turn entrust the portfolio manager with a mandate to manage the funds deposited with a Swiss bank. The parties to the contract were the portfolio manager, a Panamanian company, another person and the client.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_119/2012
Original language: 
German
Published: 
30 ASA Bull 864 (2012)
Parties
Appellant: 
X.__ AG
Respondent: 
Y.__
Counsel
Appellant: 
Burkhardt Martin
Moser Robine
Respondent: 
Jegher Gion
PDF version of the translation: 
PDF icon 6 août 2012 4A 119 2012.pdf
Domestic case or appeal withdrawn or manifestly inadmissible
April 30, 2013

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_43/2013
Original language: 
German
Parties
Appellant: 
X.__ AG
Respondent: 
Y.__ mbH
Counsel
Appellant: 
Muff Marcel
Respondent: 
Waldmann Bettina
Domestic case or appeal withdrawn or manifestly inadmissible
January 10, 2014

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_398/2013
Original language: 
German
Parties
Appellant: 
X.__ AG
Respondent: 
Y.__
Counsel
Appellant: 
Urbach Guido E.
Respondent: 
Frey Carmela
Domestic case or appeal withdrawn or manifestly inadmissible
February 27, 2014

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_511/2013
Original language: 
German
Published: 
32 ASA Bull 609 (2014)
Parties
Appellant: 
X.__ AG
Respondent: 
Y.__
Counsel
Respondent: 
Häfliger Bruno
Distinction between interlocutory and partial awards - Legal nature of expert determination
November 17, 2008

The opinion is of limited scholarly interest but it provides a good illustration of the “collective mind” of our Supreme Court.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_438/2008
Original language: 
French
Published: 
29 ASA Bull 379 (2011)
2 SwissIntArbRep 535 (2008)
Parties
Appellant: 
X.__ AG
Y.__ SA
Respondent: 
A.__
Counsel
Appellant: 
Wilhelm Christophe
Respondent: 
Manfrini Pierre-Louis
Fatio Guillaume
PDF version of the translation: 
PDF icon 17 novembre 2008 4A 438 2008.pdf
Chairman: 
Patry Jean
Arbitrator (s): 
Habegger Philipp
Fiebinger Rudolf
Normative interpretation excluded by the factual findings
October 2, 2013

The case involved a 1999 Distribution Agreement between a German company (and presumably its subsidiary in Egypt) on the one hand and an Egyptian company on the other hand.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_305/2013
Original language: 
German
Parties
Appellant: 
X.__ AG
X.__ Technologies S.A.E
Respondent: 
Y.__
Counsel
Appellant: 
Voser Nathalie
Liatowitsch Manuel
Stark-Traber Sonja
Respondent: 
El-Shalakany Khaled
PDF version of the translation: 
PDF icon 2 octobre 2013 4A 305 2013 .pdf