SWISS INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION DECISIONS OF 06 MARCH 2017

DECISIÓN DE LA SUPREMA CORTE SUIZA DE ARBITRAJE INTERNACIONAL DE 6 DE MARZO DE 2017. DEBIDO PROCESO («DERECHO A SER ESCUCHADO»)

El caso involucró a dos compañías de Lybian en relación con una controversia en materia de construcción. Hubo dos contratos sucesivos con diferentes convenios arbitrales. Surgió la controversia  y se iniciaron los arbitrajes ante la CCI en Zúrich en virtud del primer contrato (un contrato FIDIC). Cuando hub oque enfrentarse a la defensa planteada en el arbitraje, el Tribunal Arbitral (el Presidente Anis F. Kasim, con los árbitros Loukas Mistelis y Mohmmed Ibrahim Werfalli) confirmó su competencia.

No obstante, se acudió al Tribunal Federal suizo siendo la Parte 3 de su dictamen bastante interesante ya que expone su criterio respecto del “derecho a ser oído” con arreglo al derecho suizo. Los lectores estadounidenses y de derecho común (common law) notarán que el dictamen es bastante restrictivo según sus estándares. Esto se debe, principalmente, a la confirmación de su conocida tendencia a mantener los laudos internacionales en la medida de lo posible y no interferir con el curso de un arbitraje.

 

Swiss Supreme Court International Arbitration Decision of 06 March 2017

Due process (« right to be heard”) revisited

 Dear Friends,

In the process of « catching up” with translations we would have liked to send earlier, here is the English version of an opinion dated March 6, 2017. The opinion is not without interest.

The case involved two Lybian companies and a construction dispute. There were two successive contracts with different jurisdiction clauses. A dispute arose and ICC arbitration proceedings were initiated in Zürich under the first contract (a FIDIC contract). When confronted with a jurisdictional defense raised in the arbitration, the Arbitral Tribunal (Chairman Anis F.Kassim, with arbitrators Loukas Mistelis and Mohmmed Ibrahim Werfalli) upheld its jurisdiction.

An appeal was made to the Federal Tribunal and whilst sections 2.1 to 2.5 of the opinion contain mainly “boiler plate” language, Part 3 is quite interesting as it sets forth the view of the Court as to the “right to be heard” as it is called in Switzerland. American and common law readers will notice that the position is quite restrictive by English speaking standards. This is partly due to the Court’s reluctance to go into the minutiae of an international arbitration, but also, and perhaps mainly, the confirmation of its well known tendency to uphold international awards to the extent possible and not interfere with the course of an arbitration.

Please do not hesitate to use the translation as much as you wish.

Warm regards

Charles Poncet                                                 Despina Mavromati

 

All opinions of the Swiss Supreme Court in International Arbitration since 2008 are available at www.swissarbitrationdecisions.com

 

    Archivos adjuntos:
 
Archivo 1 PDF

Archivo 2 PDF

CORTE VASCA DE ARBITRAJE. Pº. Portuetxe nº 61 – 3º  |  20018 San Sebastián
Tel. 943471143 | Fax. 943471112 | e-mail: cortevascaarbitraje@leyprocesal.com