Switzerland, Seconda Camera civile del Tribunale d’appello, Repubblica e Cantone Ticino
Available documents (3)
sorted by (Publication date descending, Resource ascending) Add to selection
Quick view
Refine your search
Switzerland / 24 February 2010 / Switzerland, Seconda Camera civile del Tribunale d’appello, Repubblica e Cantone Ticino / 12.2009.58
Country Switzerland Court Switzerland, Seconda Camera civile del Tribunale d’appello, Repubblica e Cantone Ticino Date 24 February 2010 Case number 12.2009.58 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(3) Source http://www.sentenze.ti.ch/ (website of the Canton of Ticino), published with the authorization of the competent authorities
Languages Italian Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5659&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Switzerland Court Switzerland, Seconda Camera civile del Tribunale d’appello, Repubblica e Cantone Ticino Date 02 April 2003 Case number 12.2002.121 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(1) | II(2) Source www.sentenze.ti.ch (website of the Canton of Ticino), published with the authorization of the competent authorities
Languages English Summary On 26 February 2001, the owner of an apartment (“X”) entered into a rental agreement with an Italian company, which allowed the latter to sublet the apartment to two individuals (“Y”). The Italian company entered into a sublet agreement with Y on 1 March 2001, to which X was not a party, and which provided that part of the rent due to X would be paid by the Italian company. Several months later, on 6 June 2001, the parties to the sublet agreement entered into another agreement which contained an arbitration clause, and provided, inter alia, that the Italian company was no longer required to pay part of the rent. When Y refused to pay the rent in full, X terminated the rental agreement. Y challenged the termination before the Ufficio di Conciliazione in Material di Locazione (Conciliation Office Dealing with Rental Disputes). In the meantime, X sought an eviction order from the Pretore del Distretto di Lugano (First Instance Court of Lugano) and Y relied on the arbitration clause, claiming that the Pretore lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter. The Pretore dismissed Y’s claim, noting that Y had failed to raise the arbitration clause before the Ufficio di conciliazione and had thus waived its rights under the arbitration clause. Y appealed the decision. The Seconda Camera Civile del Tribunale d’Appello (Second Civil Chamber of the Court of appeal) dismissed the appeal, confirming the jurisdiction of Swiss courts. It first noted that pursuant to both Swiss law and Articles II(1) and II(2) NYC, the courts were required to recognize agreements containing an arbitration clause which were in writing and signed by the parties. It then held that X was not bound by the arbitration clause contained in the agreement of 6 June 2001 because it had not signed the agreement. The Tribunale d’Appello also held that under Swiss law the subject-matter of the dispute was not capable of settlement by arbitration because eviction proceedings fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Swiss courts. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1295&opac_view=6 Attachment (2)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Unofficial TranslationAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Switzerland Court Switzerland, Seconda Camera civile del Tribunale d’appello, Repubblica e Cantone Ticino Date 21 July 1997 Case number 12.97.00158 Source http://www.sentenze.ti.ch/ (website of the Canton of Ticino), published with the authorization of the competent authorities
Languages Italian Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5658&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
