Switzerland, Tribunal fédéral (Federal Tribunal)
Available documents (49)
sorted by (Publication date descending, Resource ascending) Add to selection
Quick view
Refine your search
Switzerland / 27 May 2020 / Switzerland, Tribunal fédéral (Federal Tribunal) / A. SA v. B. Ltd. / 5A_1046/2019
Country Switzerland Court Switzerland, Tribunal fédéral (Federal Tribunal) Date 27 May 2020 Parties A. SA v. B. Ltd. Case number 5A_1046/2019 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(d) | V(1)(e) | V(2) | V(2)(b) | VI Source http://www.bger.ch (website of Swiss Federal Tribunal)
Languages French Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6301&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Switzerland Court Switzerland, Tribunal fédéral (Federal Tribunal) Date 05 November 2019 Parties A. and B. v. C. Case number 5A_1019/2018 Applicable NYC Provisions II | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(c) | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source http://www.bger.ch (website of Swiss Federal Tribunal)
Languages French Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6299&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Switzerland Court Switzerland, Tribunal fédéral (Federal Tribunal) Date 04 May 2018 Parties A. SA v. B. Case number 5A_375/2018 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source http://www.bger.ch (website of Swiss Federal Tribunal)
Languages French Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5052&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Switzerland Court Switzerland, Tribunal fédéral (Federal Tribunal) Date 18 April 2018 Parties K. Limited and L. v. M. Limited and N. Limited Case number 4A_247/2017 Applicable NYC Provisions II(3) | II Source http://www.bger.ch (website of Swiss Federal Tribunal)
Languages French Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5343&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Switzerland Court Switzerland, Tribunal fédéral (Federal Tribunal) Date 11 April 2018 Parties A. v. B. S.p.A. Case number 5A_1056/2017 Source http://www.bger.ch (website of Swiss Federal Tribunal)
Languages French Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5051&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Switzerland Court Switzerland, Tribunal fédéral (Federal Tribunal) Date 09 April 2018 Parties A. Sàrl v. B. Ltd. Case number 5A_862/2017 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source http://www.bger.ch (website of Swiss Federal Tribunal)
Languages French Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5050&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Switzerland Court Switzerland, Tribunal fédéral (Federal Tribunal) Date 20 February 2018 Parties X. v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association Case number 4A_260/2017 Source http://www.bger.ch (website of Swiss Federal Tribunal)
Languages French Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5049&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Switzerland Court Switzerland, Tribunal fédéral (Federal Tribunal) Date 07 September 2016 Parties X. S.p.A. v. Y. B.V. Case number 4A_386/2015 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source http://www.bger.ch (website of Swiss Federal Tribunal)
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3699&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Switzerland Court Switzerland, Tribunal fédéral (Federal Tribunal) Date 04 February 2016 Parties A. SA v. B. Ltd Case number 5A_441/2015 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(2) | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(1)(b) | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | VII | VII(1) Source http://www.bger.ch (website of Swiss Federal Tribunal)
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3698&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Switzerland Court Switzerland, Tribunal fédéral (Federal Tribunal) Date 06 October 2015 Parties République A. v. B. International Case number 4A_34/2015 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(2) Source http://www.bger.ch (website of Swiss Federal Tribunal)
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3696&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Switzerland Court Switzerland, Tribunal fédéral (Federal Tribunal) Date 26 February 2015 Parties Club A. v. B. and C. Case number 4A_374/2014 Applicable NYC Provisions I | I(2) | V | V(1) | V(1)(b) | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source http://www.bger.ch (website of Swiss Federal Tribunal)
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3694&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Switzerland Court Switzerland, Tribunal fédéral (Federal Tribunal) Date 15 September 2014 Parties A. v. B. Case number 5A_409/2014 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(d) | V(1)(e) | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source http://www.bger.ch (website of Swiss Federal Tribunal)
affirms : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3691&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Switzerland Court Switzerland, Tribunal fédéral (Federal Tribunal) Date 28 May 2014 Parties A. v. B. Case number 4A_35/2014 Source http://www.bger.ch (website of Swiss Federal Tribunal)
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4591&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Switzerland Court Switzerland, Tribunal fédéral (Federal Tribunal) Date 27 May 2014 Parties A. v. B. Case number 4A_508/2013 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(3) Source http://www.bger.ch (website of Swiss Federal Tribunal)
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3690&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Switzerland Court Switzerland, Tribunal fédéral (Federal Tribunal) Date 21 January 2014 Parties X. Ltd v. Société Z. Case number 4A_250/2013 Applicable NYC Provisions V Source http://www.bger.ch (website of Swiss Federal Tribunal)
affirms : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3689&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Switzerland Court Switzerland, Tribunal fédéral (Federal Tribunal) Date 13 November 2013 Parties Club X. SA v. Z. Case number 4A_282/2013 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(d) Source http://www.bger.ch (website of Swiss Federal Tribunal)
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3688&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Switzerland Court Switzerland, Tribunal fédéral (Federal Tribunal) Date 26 July 2013 Case number 5A_68/2013, 5A_69/2013 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(b) | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source http://www.bger.ch (website of Swiss Federal Tribunal)
Languages English Summary Summary in preparation Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1565&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Switzerland Court Switzerland, Tribunal fédéral (Federal Tribunal) Date 10 January 2013 Case number 4A_146/2012 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(b) Source http://www.bger.ch (website of Swiss Federal Tribunal)
Languages English Summary Summary in preparation Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1566&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Switzerland Court Switzerland, Tribunal fédéral (Federal Tribunal) Date 21 December 2012 Case number 5A_355/2012 Applicable NYC Provisions II | V Source http://www.bger.ch (website of Swiss Federal Tribunal)
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1567&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Switzerland Court Switzerland, Tribunal fédéral (Federal Tribunal) Date 18 September 2012 Parties YX., ZX., VX. and WX. v. A. and BX. Case number 5A_344/2012 Applicable NYC Provisions IV | IV(1) Source http://www.bger.ch (website of Swiss Federal Tribunal)
Languages French Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6296&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Switzerland Court Switzerland, Tribunal fédéral (Federal Tribunal) Date 16 December 2011 Parties A v. B Case number 5A_441/2011 Applicable NYC Provisions IV | V | V(1) | V(1)(b) Source http://www.bger.ch (website of Swiss Federal Tribunal)
Languages English Summary Three contracts were concluded between a seller and a buyer. A dispute arose and the buyer filed a Request for Arbitration to the Grain and Feed Trade Association (GAFTA). An award was rendered on 26 May 2005 in favor of C. On 25 February 2008, the parties entered into a settlement agreement whereby the buyer agreed to waive its right to enforce the award in exchange for payment, in 8 installments, of half the sum awarded by the arbitral tribunal. The settlement agreement provided that in the case of non-payment of an installment, the settlement agreement would become void. The buyer subsequently assigned the settlement agreement to its holding. The seller did not pay one of the installments and the holding company terminated the settlement agreement and sought enforcement of the arbitral award. The seller opposed enforcement on the ground that it violated Article V(1)(b) NYC. The Tribunal de Première Instance (Court of First Instance) granted enforcement of the award and the Cour de Justice of Geneva (Court of Justice of Geneva) confirmed the enforcement order. The seller lodged an appeal before the Tribunal Fédéral. The Tribunal Fédéral (Federal Tribunal) dismissed the appeal. It held that international arbitral awards, if enforceable, are considered equivalent to judgments. The Tribunal Fédéral considered that the requirements of Article IV NYC were met and that it was for the party opposing enforcement to prove a violation of Article V(1)(b) NYC. The Tribunal Fédéral dismissed the argument that the seller’s representative had not been duly authorized to conduct the arbitration proceedings and therefore it was not properly served notice nor given an opportunity to participate in the arbitration proceedings, on the grounds that it pertained to the merits. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=915&opac_view=6 Attachment (2)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Unofficial TranslationAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Switzerland Court Switzerland, Tribunal fédéral (Federal Tribunal) Date 10 October 2011 Case number 5A_427/2011 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2) | V(2)(b) | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(b) Source http://www.bger.ch (website of Swiss Federal Tribunal)
Languages English Summary A and B concluded a contract for the delivery of goods from A to B. Bank acted as guarantor for B, agreeing to pay the price of goods upon the presentation of certain documents by A. These were presented and payment was made. Subsequently, B entertained doubts as to the authenticity of the documents and alleged that it had not received the agreed goods. B commenced an arbitration before the Syrian Council of State, relying on a pro forma invoice dated 22 February 2001 which provided for arbitration. The Council of State found that A had used a falsified inspection certificate in the documents submitted to the bank and that A did not participate in the proceedings. B’s bank also initiated criminal proceedings against A in France; the French court found there had been no fraud. B applied to the Tribunal of First Instance in Geneva, seeking to freeze A’s assets held by D’s bank in Geneva and enforce the award. In its application it submitted faxed copies of the invoice containing the arbitration agreement. The Tribunal of First Instance found for B; its decision was upheld on appeal. A appealed again. The Swiss Federal Tribunal dismissed A’s appeal. The Federal Tribunal held that Article IV(1)(b) NYC, which requires the original arbitration agreement to be submitted for an award to be enforceable, should not be interpreted in an excessively formalistic manner. It held that although that the document submitted was not the original invoice but a faxed copy, the authenticity of the document had not been challenged by A. Arguments by A that it had not been notified to participate in the proceedings (pursuant to Article V(1)(b) NYC) and that enforcement of the award would be contrary to Swiss public policy (Article V(2)(b) NYC) were unsuccessful on the facts. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=572&opac_view=6 Attachment (2)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Unofficial TranslationAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Switzerland Court Switzerland, Tribunal fédéral (Federal Tribunal) Date 28 July 2010 Case number 4A_233/2010 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(d) | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source http://www.bger.ch (website of Swiss Federal Tribunal)
Languages English Summary Y, a company incorporated in the USA, contracted to maintain and service three aircrafts of X, a Swiss company. The contract provided for arbitration before a panel of three arbitrators. Y initiated arbitral proceedings and, with X’s consent, submitted the dispute to a sole arbitrator. The arbitrator ordered an award for damages in favour of Y. Y sought to enforce the award in Switzerland. X argued that the award had been improperly procured because: (i) it was determined by a sole arbitrator, contrary to the provisions of the contract; (ii) the arbitrator’s daughter had been a trainee in Y’s counsel’s law firm and Y’s counsel had met the arbitrator once; and, (iii) Y’s counsel and the arbitrator were qualified to practice before the same Circuit of Court of Appeals in the United States. Matter (ii) had been put to X’s counsel, who had answered that it had no objection to the continuance of arbitral proceedings. X’s arguments were rejected by the Tribunal of First Instance of Geneva and the Court of Justice of the Canton of Geneva. X appealed. The Swiss Federal Tribunal dismissed the appeal. With respect to (i), X had consented to a sole arbitrator; (ii), even X’s counsel had not considered that matter to have been prejudicial; and, (iii) did not cast doubt on the arbitrator’s impartiality. The Federal Tribunal held that Article V NYC is exhaustive (3.2.1). It further held that the party opposing recognition and enforcement bears the burden of proof under Article V(1) NYC (3.2.1). Finally, a party must raise any grounds for challenge as soon as it becomes aware of them (3.2.1). For the recognition of an award to violate Swiss public policy, such recognition must offend Swiss concepts of justice in an intolerable manner (3.2.1). see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=571&opac_view=6 Attachment (2)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Unofficial TranslationAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Switzerland Court Switzerland, Tribunal fédéral (Federal Tribunal) Date 09 February 2009 Parties A. and B. v. C. Case number 5A_634/2008 Source http://www.bger.ch (website of Swiss Federal Tribunal)
Languages French Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6295&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Switzerland Court Switzerland, Tribunal fédéral (Federal Tribunal) Date 09 December 2008 Case number 4A_403/2008 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(e) Source http://www.bger.ch (website of Swiss Federal Tribunal)
Languages English Summary State Y and Company X entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on 31 July 2002 providing for ICC arbitration in Paris. A dispute arose as to certain payments alleged due by State Y to Company X under the MoU. State Y commenced an arbitration. The arbitral tribunal rendered an award holding that that the alleged debt under the MoU was nonexistent. State Y sought enforcement orders for the award in France and Switzerland. The Tribunal of First Instance of Geneva granted recognition. Company X appealed before the Court of Justice of Geneva, which upheld the decision of the court below. Company X appealed to the Federal Tribunal. The Swiss Federal Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Company X opposed recognition and enforcement of the award on the basis that such recognition was contrary to Art V(1)(e) NYC. It argued that the award was not yet binding because an action to set aside was still available against the award in France and that under French law the deadline to bring an action to set aside an award suspends its enforceability. The Federal Tribunal held that the award was "binding" in the sense that no ordinary means of recourse are any longer available against it. It also held that an award does not need to be enforceable at the State of the seat in order to be considered as binding because this would amount to double exequatur. The Federal Tribunal accepted the fact that an action to set aside is available does not affect the nature of the award as binding and that thus Company X had failed to prove that the action to set aside was an ordinary means of recourse against the award. Finally, the Federal Tribunal held that the mere suspension of the award's enforceability by operation of the law of the seat does not affect the binding nature of the award, unless such suspension is declared by a court. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=570&opac_view=6 Attachment (2)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Unofficial TranslationAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Switzerland Court Switzerland, Tribunal fédéral (Federal Tribunal) Date 09 January 2008 Parties X v. Y Case number 4A_436/2007 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(3) Source http://www.bger.ch (website of Swiss Federal Tribunal)
Languages English Summary An attorney, X, entered into an agreement with a French couple pursuant to which the attorney was to provide assistance for domiciliation in Switzerland. The contract contained an arbitration agreement providing for arbitration in Switzerland. Subsequently the couple sought legal advice from X regarding certain tax issues. A dispute arose regarding the adequacy of this last legal advice. The spouse sued the attorney before local courts who then raised a jurisdictional objection based on the existence of the arbitration agreement. Both the Tribunal de Première Instance (Tribunal of First Instance) and the Cour de Justice of Geneva (Court of Justice of Geneva) upheld the jurisdiction of the State courts. The attorney lodged an appeal before the Tribunal Fédéral (Federal Tribunal). The Tribunal Fédéral dismissed the appeal. It held that since the arbitration agreement provided for arbitration in Switzerland, Article II(3) NYC did not apply. It held that it was manifest that the agreement did not cover the subsequent legal advice regarding tax issues but only applied to the domiciliation procedure. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=914&opac_view=6 Attachment (2)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Unofficial TranslationAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Switzerland Court Switzerland, Tribunal fédéral (Federal Tribunal) Date 22 March 2007 Parties X. v. ATP Tour Case number 4P.172/2006 Source http://www.bger.ch (website of Swiss Federal Tribunal)
Languages French Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5048&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Switzerland Court Switzerland, Tribunal fédéral (Federal Tribunal) Date 08 March 2006 Parties X. S.p.A v. Y. S.r.l. Case number 4P.278/2005 Source http://www.bger.ch (website of Swiss Federal Tribunal)
Languages French Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5047&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Switzerland Court Switzerland, Tribunal fédéral (Federal Tribunal) Date 03 January 2006 Parties Y v. X Case number 5P.292/2005 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(e) | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source http://www.bger.ch (website of Swiss Federal Tribunal)
Languages English Summary On 28 May 2003, X and Y, two companies engaged in the oil business, entered into a contract providing for the sale and delivery of oil. The contract contained an arbitration agreement providing for arbitration before the Riga Commercial Arbitral Tribunal. A dispute arose and Y seized the commercial arbitral tribunal of Riga which rendered an award on 2 December 2003 in favor of Y (the “First Award”). On 7 January 2004, the District Tribunal of Zimeliai of Riga granted enforcement of the award. Meanwhile, X too filed a Request for Arbitration before the Riga Commercial Arbitral Tribunal requesting the annulment of the contract. On 13 October 2003 the tribunal, ruling in the absence of Y, annulled the contract and directed Y to pay damages to X (the “Second Award”). On 12 January 2004 the the District Tribunal of Zimeliai of Riga refused to enforce the Second Award on the grounds that Y was not properly served notice of the arbitration proceedings. On 15 October 2004 X filed a second request before the Riga Commercial Arbitral Tribunal claiming damages for Y’s failure to perform the contract. Y was properly served notice but did not appear. On 16 November 2004 the Riga Commercial Arbitral Tribunal ruled in favor of X and directed Y to pay damages to X (the “Third Award”). In parallel, on 24 March 2004, Y sought enforcement in Switzerland of the First Award. The Tribunal de Première Instance of Geneva (Geneva Tribunal of First Instance) granted Y an escrow on X’s assets which was subsequently confirmed by the Cour de Justice of Geneva (Court of Justice of Geneva) and the Tribunal Fédéral (Federal Tribunal). At the same time, Y sought recovery of the sums awarded in the First Award and recognition of the said award in Switzerland. X brought an action opposing the execution (“requête de mainlevée”) on the ground that the amount should be set-off with the amounts decided in the Third Award. On 23 March 2005, the Tribunal de Première Instance granted recognition and enforcement to the First Award after off-setting the amount decided in the Third Award. The Cour de Justice of Geneva (Geneva Court of Justice) confirmed the decision of the Tribunal de Première Instance. It considered that compensation between the amounts decided in the First and the Third Award could operate if the Third Award was valid pursuant to the NYC. Analyzing the validity of the Third Award pursuant to the NYC, the Cour de Justice held that recognition and enforcement of an award could only be denied if one of the grounds in Article V(1) NYC was met. It considered that the Third Award was valid as Y did not prove any ground for non-recognition under of Article V(1)(b) NYC, and in particular, it was not disputed that service by simple letter was valid under Latvian law. Y lodged a public law appeal to the Tribunal Fédéral opposing recognition of the Third Award on the grounds that the Cour de Justice did not examine its arguments that the award violated Article V(1)(b) NYC that it did not receive notice of the proceedings leading to the Third Award, Article V(1)(e) NYC that the award had not been enforced in Latvia; and Article V(2)(b) NYC that the award violated Swiss public policy. The Tribunal Fédéral dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal Fédéral held that the Cour de Justice of Geneva examined the ground for non-enforcement based on Article V(1)(b) NYC and considered that service by simple letter was permitted under Latvian law and was therefore valid. The Tribunal Fédéral held that, pursuant to Article V(1)(e) NYC, an award does not need to be enforced in the country where it had been rendered but only be “binding” on the parties, which is the case when the award cannot be challenged by ordinary appeal. The Tribunal Fédéral added that an award would not be binding pursuant to Article V(1)(e) NYC if it had been set aside or was suspended pending annulment proceedings in the country where it had been rendered. The Tribunal Fédéral considered that, in the present case, the award was binding on the parties even though it was non enforceable in Latvia. The Tribunal Fédéral dismissed Y’s argument based on Article V(2)(b) NYC as inadmissible, because it was raised for first time and had not been raised it at earlier stages of the enforcement proceedings. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=933&opac_view=6 Attachment (2)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Unofficial TranslationAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Switzerland Court Switzerland, Tribunal fédéral (Federal Tribunal) Date 27 October 2005 Parties A. v. B. Case number 4P.174/2005 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(3) Source http://www.bger.ch (website of Swiss Federal Tribunal)
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4590&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
