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 6 result(s)
October 29, 2008

The Federal Tribunal refers to two arbitrations. As it happens, I was one of the arbitrators in one of the two and it might not be fully appropriate for me to comment or criticize the decision.

Accordingly, I will simply point out the issues the Federal Tribunal dealt with:

(i) Section 3 of the opinion deals with jurisdiction. The interesting part is at 3.3.1.2 at pages 10 – 11.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_210/2008
Original language: 
French
Published: 
2009, ASA Bulletin 309
2 SwissIntArbRep 495 (2008)
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
Chairman: 
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: 
September 30, 2013

The case involved a distribution agreement between an English company and a Greek company. The contract was governed by English law and provided for ICC arbitration in Geneva.

The English company subsequently advised its Greek counterpart that the goods would henceforth be sent and invoiced by an Italian company as a consequence of an administrative reorganization of the group.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_232/2013
Original language: 
French
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
September 20, 2016

It is seldom that the Federal Tribunal ventures into the area of investment protection. As some of you may remember, it did so to address the difference between a treaty claim and a contract claim in the relatively famous case of EDF v. Hungary of October 6, 2015.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_616/2015
Original language: 
French
Parties
Counsel
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
PDF version of the translation: 
Chairman: 
August 20, 2012

In 2007 a Swiss company, a Dutch company and a bank entered into a contract whereby the two companies were to control the delivery and storage of cereals bought by a third party - also a signatory of the contract - by way of the credit lines the Swiss bank was making available for this purpose.

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_240/2012
Original language: 
French
Published: 
31 ASA Bull 100 (2013)
Parties
Appellant: 
Respondent: 
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
Arbitrator (s): 
May 16, 2011

The case involved a contract governed by Swiss law for the delivery of a production line for certain materials. Arbitration proceedings began in Geneva in January 2009 and an ad hoc arbitral tribunal was created with Pierre Tercier as Chairman, and Laurent Hennes and Werner Wenger as arbitrators.

 

Case information

Docket number: 
4A_46/2011
Original language: 
French
Published: 
29 ASA Bull 643 (2011)
Parties
Counsel
PDF version of the translation: 
Chairman: