Switzerland: Recent Case Law Of The Swiss Federal Supreme Court In Arbitration Matters

In 2014, the Supreme Court rendered 32 decisions on petitions to set aside international arbitral awards. This Newsletter reviews the six arguably most important cases: three decisions address issues relating to the jurisdiction of arbitrators, including where a contractual pre-arbitral step has not been complied with or where a party seeks to extend an arbitration agreement to a non-signatory; the other cases concern the arbitral tribunal's obligation to deal with the parties' material arguments, the scope of objections against interim awards, and res judicata in international arbitration.


International arbitration is the preferred method of dispute resolution for many companies. Switzerland has been, and continues to be, a leading arbitration venue. The country's liberal, arbitration-friendly, and efficient legislative and judicial frameworks are among the reasons for which parties choose Switzerland as a seat of arbitration.

Petitions to set aside awards issued by arbitral tribunals seated in Switzerland in international matters may be brought only before the Swiss Federal Supreme Court ("Supreme Court") and only on the basis of one of five grounds contained in Article 190(2) PILA – (a) irregular composition of the tribunal, (b) wrong ruling on jurisdiction, (c) decisions infra or ultra petita, (d) violation of the right to be heard or equal treatment, and (e) violation of public policy. The Supreme Court's decisions on these petitions deserve close attention because they often contain important guidance on the law and practice of international arbitration.

In 2014, the Supreme Court rendered 32 decisions on petitions to set aside international arbitral awards. Consistent with a traditionally low success rate, the Supreme Court granted only four of the 32 petitions.

This Newsletter reviews six decisions that together arguably were the most important cases rendered in 2014.


2.1 Decision 140 III 75: An award rendered after expiry of an agreed deadline falls outside of the tribunal's jurisdiction ratione temporis

In this decision, the Supreme Court set aside an arbitral award that was rendered after the agreed time limit.

An ad-hoc arbitration commenced in June 2010 and the final oral pleadings took place in May 2011. Starting in June 2012, Claimant's counsel repeatedly inquired about the status and threatened to take the matter to the competent Swiss state court. The arbitrator finally offered to resign should he not produce the award by a fixed deadline. The award was rendered two days after that deadline.

Claimant sought to set aside the award on the ground that it was rendered by a tribunal that was no longer in existence and therefore in violation of Article 190(2)(a) PILA.

The Supreme Court upheld Claimant's petition but on a different legal basis. The Court reasoned that there had been a tripartite agreement between the parties and the arbitrator specifying a temporal limit to the arbitrator's mission. This decision clarifies an issue that was heretofore open: where a temporal limit to the tribunal's mission has been agreed, awards rendered after such deadline will violate Article 190(2)(b) PILA as falling outside of the tribunal's jurisdiction ratione temporis.

2.2 Decision 4A_124/2014: FIDIC Dispute Adjudication Boards are, in principle, Mandatory

In this decision, the Supreme Court for the first time decided questions relating to Article 20 of the International Federation of Consulting Engineers ("FIDIC") conditions of contract. The FIDIC model terms and conditions are widely used in international construction contracts. Article 20 provides that disputes shall first be adjudicated by a Dispute Adjudication Board ("DAB"), and only if no DAB is in place, or if a decision has been rendered but either party is dissatisfied, should the dispute finally be resolved by arbitration.

A French construction company contracted to build part of a national highway for an entity owned by the Romanian government. A dispute arose and the contractor referred it to a DAB. More than a year passed until a chairperson was appointed, and no DAB agreement was ever signed. The owner was mainly responsible for this delay. The contractor then filed for arbitration. The owner raised a jurisdictional objection, arguing that the DAB procedure was mandatory and had not yet been complied with. The tribunal rejected this objection finding that the DAB procedure was not mandatory.

"Swiss law is frequently chosen in FIDIC and international construction contracts. The Supreme Court has now confirmed that the DAB is a mandatory pre-arbitral tier, subject to the principle of good faith."

The Supreme Court upheld the tribunal's jurisdiction but disagreed with the tribunal on the reason why: according to the Court, the DAB procedure is mandatory. However, whether a pre-arbitral tier such as the DAB will operate to bar the tribunal from exercising jurisdiction depends on whether the party relying on the tier, respectively the party seeking to skip it, has acted in good faith in bringing it about. This was not the case here where the owner had delayed the constitution of the DAB.

Swiss law is frequently chosen in FIDIC and international construction contracts, which often contain multi-tier dispute resolution clauses. Therefore, this decision is particularly important.

The decision also clarifies that where the arbitration agreement is governed by Swiss law, Article 178(2) PILA (which reflects the principle of favorem validitatis) will also apply to the pre-arbitral tier.

2.3 Decision 4A_450/2013: Extending the arbitration agreement to a third party

In this decision, the Supreme Court found that a tribunal might have jurisdiction over a third party that was not a signatory to the arbitration agreement.

The arbitration involved a dispute over the construction of industrial facilities between aluminum company A and a group of companies B. The contracts with the arbitration agreements were signed by parties A and B1 alone. However, a division in B1's direct parent, B2, became responsible for the construction project; B2 also provided guarantees for obligations under one of the contracts; and the division was transferred from party B2 to party B3. A filed an arbitration not only against the signatory B1 but also the non-signatory B3. B3 objected on the basis of lack of jurisdiction, and the tribunal agreed.

The Supreme Court disagreed and decided that the tribunal improperly declined jurisdiction (although it did not affirm jurisdiction but remanded the case for further review in light of the Court's reasoning). The Court carefully examined the contractual documents and concluded that B2 had assumed B1's obligations. Moreover, it analyzed the situation under the principle of good faith, reasoning that B1 and B2 behaved in such a way that A could have believed that it had a legal relationship also with B2 (respectively B3, to whom the corporate division was transferred). B2 would have needed to clearly express to A that it did not wish to be considered as a party to the contracts.

"To avoid having non-signatory affiliates pulled into arbitration, corporate groups should clearly communicate which entity is or is not considered bound by the contract."

While this case does not change the law, it serves as a reminder that where one entity signs a contract, but another entity assumes legal or factual responsibility for executing the contract and/or in situations in which the respective roles may not be fully apparent to the counterparty, there is a risk that the arbitration agreement will bind not only the signatory party but also non-signatory parties. If the corporate group wishes to avoid having different entities pulled into arbitration, there should be specific communication with the counterparty clearly establishing which entity is or is not considered bound by the contract and the arbitration clause.


In decision 4A_460/2013, the Supreme Court held that the tribunal violated a party's right to be heard because it failed to address two important legal arguments that this party had repeatedly advocated.

The underlying arbitration was between a Finnish supplier and a Bulgarian purchaser. The seller repeatedly invoked a contractual liability limitation in arguing that it was not liable for certain damages claimed by the buyer. Before the Supreme Court, the seller argued that the tribunal had ignored these arguments in the final award.

The Supreme Court agreed. According to well-established case law, an arbitral award must deal with arguments and evidence put forth by a party if these are material to the outcome of the case. If it does not address them explicitly, the tribunal or the opposing party must demonstrate that they are not material or that the tribunal addressed them implicitly. Here, the Supreme Court found that the contractual limitation was material to the outcome of the case. Moreover, while the award stated the seller's position on this limitation, it failed to address it in the reasoning or operative parts. One could not simply assume that the tribunal had dealt with the argument.

This decision is part of a recent trend that the Supreme Court will look more closely at whether a tribunal has addressed the parties' material arguments.


4.1 Decision 140 III 477: Permissible scope of objections against interim awards

In this decision, the Supreme Court clarified the permissible scope of objections against interim arbitral awards. The case arose from an arbitration between a Luxembourg company and a Turkish individual about share purchase agreements. A first set of contracts contained a somewhat ambiguous arbitration clause, whereas a second set of contracts provided for state court jurisdiction. When the individual commenced arbitration, the company objected arguing that the parties had replaced arbitration with state court litigation as the applicable dispute resolution mechanism. The arbitrator bifurcated the case and in an interim award upheld jurisdiction. The company argued that the arbitrator had wrongly accepted jurisdiction and in doing so had violated the parties' right to be heard and the principle of equal treatment.

The Supreme Court rejected the petition and found the arbitrator properly upheld jurisdiction. In doing so, it had to decide whether the company's arguments regarding alleged violations of the right to be heard and equal treatment were admissible in the first place. Under Article 190(3) PILA, so-called interim awards – which often result from bifurcated proceedings where jurisdiction or liability is decided in a first stage, and the merits of the case or the quantum are decided in a second stage – may and must be challenged immediately, failing which any objection to them is deemed waived. However, the permissible grounds of appeal against such decisions are only the irregular constitution of the tribunal and a wrong ruling on jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court decided for the first time that in filing an appeal against an interim award, parties may also invoke the other grounds of appeal under Article 190(2) PILA – namely a violation of the right to be heard, equal treatment, or public policy – but only to the extent they relate directly to the factual basis for the tribunal's finding regarding its constitution or jurisdiction. This decision was supported by considerations of procedural efficiency. Moreover, to decide otherwise could permit an interim award to stand that was based on findings of fact based on violations of due process or public policy.

Accordingly, a party which receives an interim award must challenge it immediately if it sees grounds for setting aside and cannot await the outcome of the arbitration in the final award. It is now clear that a challenge on the basis of improper constitution of the tribunal or lack of jurisdiction may and must include all alleged relevant violations also under Article 190(2)(c), (d), or (e) PILA.

4.2 Decision 140 III 278: Res judicata in Arbitration

In this decision, only its second case on this issue, the Supreme Court provided important guidance on the concept of res judicata in international arbitration.

In a 2012 decision, the Supreme Court had for the first time ruled that the principle of res judicata was part of procedural public policy.

The present case was between a state-owned railway company and a general contractor over a dispute regarding the construction of a highway and railway bridge. At issue was the signatory power of the company's representative who signed an addendum to the contract. This issue was the subject of a litigation outside of Switzerland between the country's prosecutor, the company and the contractor. It reached the country's highest court, which in April 2012 held that the addendum was invalid. In parallel to the state proceedings, there was an arbitration in Switzerland in which the validity of the addendum was also an issue. The tribunal in September 2013 issued an award finding that the addendum was valid and enforceable.

"The res judicata effects of a foreign court decision are assessed by using a 'common denominator' approach of the effects of foreign and Swiss law."

The railway company argued that the tribunal had violated the principle of res judicata. The Supreme Court disagreed because it determined the nature of the dispute in the litigation, and the arbitration was not identical. In doing so, the Supreme Court provided additional guidance on two issues.

First, whether a claim raised in a foreign court is identical to the one brought before an international arbitral tribunal seated in Switzerland must be dealt with in accordance with the Swiss lex fori. At the same time, the effect of a foreign judgment in Switzerland cannot be more extensive than the effect of a Swiss judgment or the effect of the foreign judgment under the legal system from which it emanates. Thus, the res judicata effects of a foreign decision are assessed by using a "common denominator" approach of the effects of both the foreign law and Swiss law.

Second, when it comes to the identity of the parties, the Supreme Court questioned whether a rigid and formal approach is justified and indicated that it was open to consider the specifics of the situation to prevent "potential ambush tactics" from jeopardizing arbitral proceedings.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Practice Guides
by Mondaq Advice Centres
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions