The Application of Article 7 of the Swiss Private International Law Act (Switzerland)

Synková, Sandra

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-00134-0_8

Sandra Synková²

905 Accesses

Abstract

Before resorting to the analysis of Article 7 of the Swiss Private International Law Act (“PILA”) a few general points have to be made. Although, similarly to the previous chapter, the present chapter seeks to follow essentially the same structure as Chap. 6, some deviations were warranted in the light of the following facts: firstly, unlike the English Arbitration Act (and the Tenth Book of the ZPO), Chapter 12 of the Swiss Private International Law Act, dedicated to International Arbitration, applies, as its title indicates, only to arbitrations considered international under the Act. Secondly, as was discussed in Chap. 1, significant differences exist in the typology and hierarchy of legal sources between countries of the common law and of the civil law legal tradition. Hence, while in the analysis contained in Chap. 6, references to case law prevailed over references to scholarly writings, the present chapter to some extent reverses this balance. Thirdly, in Swiss legal scholarship, the debate regarding the parameters of court inquiry into the existence and validity of an arbitration agreement at the pre-award stage is closely connected to the debate concerning the application of a lis pendens rule in international arbitration. In the Swiss legal order these issues are perceived as closely related. Finally, a proposal to amend Article 7 PILA, providing for the obligation to decline jurisdiction in the view of an agreement to arbitrate, is currently in the legislative process. Accordingly, the proposal will be addressed alongside with the discussion of the current Article 7.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 84.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 109.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 109.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
See supra at Sect. 1.4.1 et seq.
2.
Swiss Private International Law Act – Bundesgesetz über das Internationale Privatrecht (IPRG) from 18 December 1987, AS 1988 1776, SR 272.
3.
E.g. Article 186 1^bis. See infra.
4.
Blessing (1999), 181; Wiebecke (2011), 444.
5.
Konkordat vom 27 März 1969 über die Schiedsgerichtbarkeit, AS 1969 1093, SR 279.
6.
Botschaft zum Bundesgesetz über das internationale Privatrecht (IPRG-Gesetz) vom 10. November 1982 Schweizerisches Bundesgericht BBI 1983 I 263–519 287.
7.
See, e.g. von Segesser and Schramm (2010), 911.
8.
See supra at Sect. 7.2, para. 2.
9.
See also fourth part of the SCCP regarding the transition period.
10.
See Article 353(1) of the Federal Code of Civil Procedure - Schweizerische Zivilprozessordnung vom 19. Dezember 2008, AS 2010 1739, SR 272. The Federal Code replaced the 1969 Concordat.
11.
See Articles 176(2) PILA and 353(2) of the SCCP.
12.
Botschaft zur Scweizerischen Zivilprozessordnung (ZPO) vom 28. Juni 2006, 06.062, 7391–7392.
13.
See Article 379 SCCP.
14.
The grounds for setting aside under the SCCP are considerably wider than in the PILA. For example, Article 391 SCCP provides that an award may be challenged on the grounds that it is arbitrary in its result because it is founded on facts obviously contrary to the record or because it constitutes an obvious violation of law or equity, or because the fees and costs of the arbitrators are obviously excessive.
15.
See supra at Sect. 6.1, para. 4.
16.
Blessing (1999), 181; Schweizerisches Bundesgericht, “Botschaft zum Bundesgesetz über das internationale Privatrecht (IPRG-Gesetz) vom 10. November 1982” 458.
17.
See supra at Sect. 6.1, para. 4 and Sect. 7.2, para. 14.
18.
Segesser and Schramm (2010), 911.
19.
Republic and Canton of Geneva Judiciary, Court of First Instance, 2 May 2005, AIR Ltd. and T. Holdings Ltd. v International Air Transport Association and C. SA, in liquidation, C/1043/2005-15SP in (2005) ASA Bulletin 23(4) 739, 747.
20.
AIR Ltd. and T. Holdings Ltd. v International Air Transport Association and C. SA at 747. See also the discussion regarding the availability of declaratory relief infra at Sect. 8.6.2.2, para. 3.
21.
Schweizerisches Bundesgericht, “Botschaft zum Bundesgesetz über das internationale Privatrecht (IPRG-Gesetz) vom 10. November 1982” 293–294 and the references cited therein.
22.
Ibid. 294 and the references contained therein.
23.
Ibid.
24.
See generally, supra at Sect. 3.3.2 et seq.
25.
See supra at Sect. 7.3, para. 1.
26.
Botschaft zum Bundesgesetz über das internationale Privatrecht (IPRG-Gesetz) vom 10. November 1982 Schweizerisches Bundesgericht, 293–295.
27.
Federal Supreme Court, 28 May 1915, Chr. Jörg v B. Jörg, BGE 41 II 534, 539 at reason 2; Federal Supreme Court, 17 March 1975, Jugomineral v Grillo Werke AG, BGE 101 II 68 at reason 1.
28.
Botschaft zum Bundesgesetz über das internationale Privatrecht (IPRG-Gesetz) vom 10. November 1982 Schweizerisches Bundesgericht, 295.
29.
See infra.
30.
Ibid, 303. Translation by the author herself.
31.
See, e.g. Arbitration Act 1996, s 2(2)(a); § 1025(2) ZPO. See also Article 1(2) of the Model Law (but note that the Model Law was drafted to apply to arbitrations that are both international and commercial).
32.
Federal Supreme Court, 29 April 1996, Fondation M v Banque X, BGE 122 III 139, in (1996) ASA Bulletin 14(3) 527, at reason 2b, note by Meyer (1996), 361. See also Berti (2007), note 1, who expressed that the systematic inclusion of Article 7 in the Provisions in Common was the result of the fact that Article 7 dealt with the jurisdiction of the court rather than of an arbitral tribunal.
33.
See also supra at Sect. 5.4 et seq.
34.
Similar conclusion has been reached by Berti. See Berti (2007), Artikel 7, note 2.
35.
Federal Order of 17 December 1992, AS 1993 2434. However, even prior to the withdrawal of the reservation the opinion has been expressed that the reciprocity obligation did not apply to the stay or dismissal of court proceedings under Article II. See Samuel (1991), 30.
36.
Federal Supreme Court, 16 January 1995, Compagnie de Navigation et Transports SA v MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company SA, BGE 121 III 38, reported in van den Berg (1996), 690–698.
37.
See also Article 1(2) PILA. Similarly also Poudret and Cottier (1995), 386.
38.
For the interpretation of the New York Convention see also Chap. 5 at Sect. 5.1 et seq.
39.
As to the conditions under Article 7 PILA see also Schweizerisches Bundesgericht, “Botschaft zum Bundesgesetz über das internationale Privatrecht (IPRG-Gesetz) vom 10. November 1982” 303.
40.
Swiss CPIL, Umbricht Attorneys, Zurich (Switzerland), 2011.
41.
Berti (2007), note 2; Schweizerisches Bundesgericht, “Botschaft zum Bundesgesetz über das internationale Privatrecht (IPRG-Gesetz) vom 10. November 1982” 303.
42.
In contrast, § 1032(1) ZPO refers to the arbitration agreement being “nichtig, unwirksam oder undurchführbar”. The slightly different choice of words as such is unlikely to have any practical implications since, as discussed in Chap. 5, the question of whether the defects of a particular agreement to arbitrate fall within one of the exceptions provided for in Article II(3) is a question to be determined pursuant to the applicable (national) law.
43.
See Übereinkommen über die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung ausländischer Schiedssprüche, AS 1965 795. Note, however, that the German text of the Convention is not authentic.
44.
Cf. Article II(3) of the New York Convention which requires a “request of one of the parties”.
45.
See, e.g. (English) Arbitration Act 1996, s 9(1) (“a party to an arbitration agreement against whom legal proceedings are brought […] may […] apply to the court”); § 1032(1) ZPO “if the respondent raises an objection prior to the beginning of the oral hearing on the substance of the dispute”.
46.
McLachlan and Nygh (1996), 56.
47.
See also Berti (2007), note 6.
48.
Ibid. note 16.
49.
The provision embedding separability of an arbitration clause is systematically incorporated in the Article of the PILA dealing with validity requirements of arbitration agreements. See Article 178(3) PILA.
50.
Schweizerisches Bundesgericht, “Botschaft zum Bundesgesetz über das internationale Privatrecht (IPRG-Gesetz) vom 10. November 1982” 464.
51.
Translation by the Swiss Chambers’ Arbitration Institution, available at https://www.swissarbitration.org/sa/en/rules.php. See also Article 359 SCCP which provides that an arbitral tribunal has the power to rule on “the validity of the arbitration agreement, its content, scope or the constitution of the arbitral tribunal” (“die Gültigkeit der Schiedsvereinbarung, ihr Inhalt, ihre Tragweite oder die richtige Konstituierung des Schiedsgerichts”) in the form of an interim award, or as a part of the award on the merits.
52.
Blessing (1999), 196.
53.
Werner Wenger and Markus Schott, “Artikel 186” in Honsell and others (eds), “Basler Kommentar Internationales Privatrecht” note 3; Poudret and Besson (2007), 389; Segesser and Schramm (2010), 942.
54.
Cf., e.g., Arbitration Act 1996, s 30 (“Unless otherwise agreed by the parties…”). See supra at Sect. 6.3, para. 9.
55.
See infra at Sect. 8.6.2.2, para. 3 et seq.
56.
See Article 186(2) PILA. See also von Segesser and Schramm (2010), 944. An exception to the rule exists in situations in which one of the parties does not participate in the arbitration proceedings. See Federal Supreme Court, 19 January 2006, BGE 4P_298/2005 at reason 2.3; Federal Supreme Court, 21 November 2003, BGE 130 III 66 at reason 4.3.
57.
Federal Supreme Court, 19 January 2006, BGE 4P_298/2005 at reason 2.3; Federal Supreme Court, 21 November 2003, BGE 130 III 66 at reason 4.3.
58.
Article 186(3) PILA. The wording has been inspired by Article 21(4) of the 1976 UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. See Blessing (1999), 197.
59.
See, e.g. Federal Supreme Court, 20 December 1995, BGE 121 III 495; Federal Supreme Court 21 February 1996, BGE 122 III 249; Federal Supreme Court, 16 October 2001, BGE 128 III 50. A similar solution has been adopted, for example, also by English courts. See, e.g. Aoot Kalmneft v Glencore International AG, Andrew W A Berkeley [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 128, Colman J at [83]. See supra at Chap. 6, fn. 73.
60.
See, e.g. Schweizerisches Bundesgericht, “Botschaft zum Bundesgesetz über das internationale Privatrecht (IPRG-Gesetz) vom 10. November 1982” 464.
61.
Besson (2003), 475.
62.
Federal Supreme Court, 20 December 1995, BGE 121 III 495. For commentary see, e.g. Besson (2003), 472 et seq.; Knoepfler (2002), 591 et seq.
63.
Federal Supreme Court, 20 December 1995 at reason 6d.
64.
Wenger and Schott, “Artikel 186” note 2.
65.
See Articles 190 and 191 PILA. Pursuant to Article 388 SCCP the parties may agree on conferring the jurisdiction to consider the setting aside application to the competent cantonal court. However, the PILA contains no comparable provision.
66.
See, e.g. Federal Supreme Court, 9 April 1991, C.S. Ltd. v C., C. S.A., BGE 117 II 94 at reason 5 a) (“mit freier Kognition” and “umfassend”). See also Wenger and Schott, “Artikel 186” note 2.
67.
Article 192(1) PILA.
68.
See generally Poudret, “Le pouvoir d’examen du juge suisse saise d’une exception d’arbitrage” 401.
69.
Federal Supreme Court, 20 December 1995, Société G v X AG et Tribunal arbitral, BGE 121 III 495 in (1996) ASA Bulletin 14(3) 508 at reason 6c.
70.
See also Geisinger and Lévy (2003), referring to Perret (2001), 68 and 76–78.
71.
Federal Supreme Court, 19 December 1997, Compañia Minerva Condesa S.A. et Compañia de Minas Buenaventura S.A. v BRGM-Pérou S.A.S., BGE 124 III 83.
72.
Federal Supreme Court, 14 May 2001, Fomento de Construcciones y Contratas S.A. v Colon Container Terminal S.A., BGE 127 III 279, in (2001) ASA Bulletin 19(3) 555, note by Scherer (2001), 451–457 and Liatowitsch (2001), 422–438. An English translation was also published in van den Berg (ed.), “Yearbook Commercial Arbitration XXIX” 809–818.
73.
Fomento de Construcciones y Contratas S.A. v Colon Container Terminal S.A. (see supra).
74.
Fomento de Construcciones y Contratas S.A. v Colon Container Terminal S.A. at reason 2 b and 2c.
75.
Ibid. at reason 2c/aa.
76.
Ibid. at reason 2c/dd.
77.
See, e.g. National Navigation Co v Endesa Generacion SA [2009] EWCA Civ 1397.
78.
See the Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 20 November 2012 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) No…/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Recast), P7_TC1-COD(2010)0383, Preamble, para. 12.
79.
For the discussion of the negative effect of Competence–Competence see also Sect. 4.5 et seq.
80.
Fomento de Construcciones y Contratas S.A. v Colon Container Terminal S.A. at reason 2b/cc.
81.
Federal Supreme Court, 29 April 1996, Fondation M v Banque X, at reason 2b.
82.
Fomento de Construcciones y Contratas S.A. v Colon Container Terminal S.A at reason 2c/ee.
83.
Ibid. at reason 2c/ee.
84.
See infra at Sect. 8.6.2.1 et seq.
85.
See, e.g. Liatowitsch (2001), 427 et seq; Scherer (2001), 451; Söderlund (2005), 310–314; Perret (2001), 75; Born (2009), 2942, but cf. Geisinger and Lévy (2003), 53.
86.
See also § 1032(2) ZPO. By contrast, the Arbitration Act 1996 does not contain an express provision to that effect. See, e.g. Merkin (1991), para. 8.26.
87.
Similarly also Wenger and Schott, “Artikel 186” note 14.
88.
For an exception see Article 192 PILA (waiver of the rights of appeal). See also supra at Sect. 8.4.1, para. 7.
89.
Article 191 PILA.
90.
Federal Supreme Court, 9 April 1991, C.S. Ltd. v C., C. S.A., BGE 117 II 94 at reason 5 a) (“mit freier Kognition” and “umfassend”). See also Segesser and Schramm (2010), 945; Geisinger and Frossard (2004), 144.
91.
Segesser and Schramm (2010), 955. See also Besson (2003), 485.
92.
See the statistics made by Dasser referred to in Chap. 4, fn. 137.
93.
Poudret and Besson (2007), 456–458; Hirsch (2009), 164.
94.
For example under Article V(1)(a) of the New York Convention.
95.
Segesser and Schramm (2010), 970–971. See also Federal Supreme Court, 21 November 2003, BGE 130 III 66 at reason 4.3, where the Court noted that objections to the court’s jurisdiction have to be raised at the earliest stage possible. Late objections, irreconcilable with the rule described above, can be disregarded as forfeited.
96.
Similarly see also Müller (2004), 115; Wenger (2000), 461 para. 2.
97.
Fomento de Construcciones y Contratas S.A. v Colon Container Terminal SA at reason 2c/ee, also referring to the unpublished decision of 16 July 1997 in 4C.206/1996, at reason 7b/bb.
98.
See also Hirsch (2009), 165.
99.
See Article 186 1^bis PILA and the discussion supra at Sect. 8.4.2 et seq.
100.
See, in particular Segesser and Schramm (2010), 942; Wenger and Schott, “Artikel 186” note 6a, 7a.
101.
See, e.g. Voyame (2004), 7.
102.
Müller-Chen (2011), 18.
103.
Ibid. 15.
104.
Ibid.
105.
See Article 1 of the Civil Code. Unofficial translation of the provision is available at the website of the Federal Authorities of the Swiss Confederation (Die Bundesbehörden der Schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft) at http://www.admin.ch/ch/e/rs/c210.html.
106.
This obligation follows from the constitutional right to equal treatment. See Article 8(1) of the Swiss Federal Constitution. See also Federal Supreme Court, 12 February 2010, 1C_356/2009 at reason 3.1. For possibilities to deviate from existing precedent see, e.g. Federal Supreme Court, 24 July 2001, 127 II 289 at reason 3a.
107.
Cf. Article 95 of the Law on the Federal Supreme Court.
108.
See, e.g. Müller-Chen (2011), 16.
109.
Note also that the Federal Supreme Court is the exclusive forum to consider applications for annulment of arbitral awards. See Article 191 PILA.
110.
Compagnie de Navigation (see supra).
111.
Compagnie de Navigation at reason 3b.
112.
See Article 176 PILA. For the discussion of the scope of applicability of the PILA see supra at Sect. 8.2, para. 3 et seq.
113.
See also Segesser and Schramm (2010), 942.
114.
Fondation M v Banque X (see supra) at reason 2b; Compagnie de Navigation (see supra) at reason 3b; Fomento de Construcciones y Contratas S.A. v Colon Container Terminal S.A. (see supra) at reason 3; Federal Supreme Court, 13 September 2004, 4P_114/2004 in (2005) ASA Bulletin 23(1) 145, at reason 7.3.
115.
Translation by the author.
116.
See Botschaft zur Schweizerischen Zivilprozessordnung vom 28. Juni 2006, 06.062, Article 59 (corresponds to Article 61 in SCCP). The explanation under Article 370(2), which provides for the rule of lis pendens, merely refers to the applicability of Article 59 in cases where the court is first seised of the matter.
117.
See also Hirsch (2009), 166, fn. 12.
118.
Compagnie de Navigation (see supra).
119.
Compagnie de Navigation et Transports SA v MSC Mediterranean Shipping, translation from van den Berg (1996), 690–698.
120.
Cf. Article 176(1) PILA regarding the scope of applicability of Chapter 12. See supra at Sect. 8.2, para. 3 et seq.
121.
Bucher (1988), 55, note 139.
122.
Compagnie de Navigation at reason 2b. Translation from van den Berg (1996), 690–698, 692, para. 5.
123.
Lalive, Poudret and Reymond (1989) Article 186 note 16.
124.
Compagnie de Navigation at reason 2b. Translation from van den Berg (1996), 690.
125.
Federal Supreme Court, 26 January 1987, Ali and Fahd Shobokshi and General Agencies Corporation v Saiecom SA and Nicola Rivelli in van den Berg (1990), 505–508.
126.
Ali and Fahd Shobokshi and General Agencies Corporation v Saiecom SA and Nicola Rivelli in Ibid. 505 at para. [8].
127.
Tschanz (2010), 479.
128.
See, e.g. Ibid. 479. See also Poudret, “Le pouvoir d’examen du juge suisse saise d’une exception d’arbitrage” 406 paras 6–7, who posited that the interpretation of Article 7 PILA as requiring a summary examination of the court’s jurisdiction was irreconcilable with the wording of Article 7, incompatible with the nature of the decision taken by the judge, which must be the subject to a thorough investigation, and the remedies available against such a decision. See further infra.
129.
For the discussion of a prima facie standard see generally Sect. 4.5.4.1 et seq.
130.
See infra at Sect. 8.6.3, para. 3 et seq.
131.
Fondation M v Banque X (see supra).
132.
Cf. Compagnie de Navigation, where the distinguishing criterion was, rather than the seat of arbitration, the applicability of the PILA. The change however seems to have a little practical significance.
133.
Fondation M v Banque X at reason 2a.
134.
Fondation M v Banque X at reason 2b (translation by the author).
135.
At this instance the Federal Supreme Court, however, referred to Article II(3) of the New York Convention as well (cf. “not only this view [expressed in Compagnie de Navigation] prevails in doctrine, but it is also consistent with the meaning of Article 7 lit. b PILA (and that of Art. II(3) of the New York Convention), which requires the State court to decline jurisdiction in the presence of an arbitration agreement, except if it finds that the agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed”; translation by the author). See Fondation M v Banque X at reason 2b. This reference is confusing and appears to contradict the Federal Supreme Court’s holding in Compagnie de Navigation (see supra).
136.
Fondation M v Banque X at reason 2b.
137.
Ibid. at reason 2c.
138.
Federal Supreme Court, 19 May 2003, X SA and A v Y AG, 4C_40/2003 in (2004) ASA Bulletin 22(2) 344 at para. 3.
139.
Federal Supreme Court, 13 September 2004, 4P_114/2004 in (2005) ASA Bulletin 23(1) 145. See also comment by Poudret, “Le pouvoir d’examen du juge suisse saise d’une exception d’arbitrage” 401.
140.
See Federal Supreme Court, 13 September 2004 (see supra) in (2005) ASA Bulletin 23(1) 145, 150.
141.
Ibid.
142.
See also Poudret, “Le pouvoir d’examen du juge suisse saise d’une exception d’arbitrage” 405, who concluded that a summary review was inconsistent with nature of the decision pursuant to Article 7 PILA and the remedies available against it. In his opinion a summary examination could bind neither the arbitral tribunal, which was required to fully review its jurisdiction, nor the Federal Supreme Court hearing an appeal on this point.
143.
Federal Supreme Court, 14 November 1979, RAL v Wetco Ltd. in Semaine Judiciare 1980, 444–445.
144.
See supra at Sect. 5.6.2, para. 10.
145.
Republic and Canton of Geneva Judiciary, Court of First Instance, 18 April 2008, C/5783/2006, ACJC/485/2008. See also comment in Hirsch (2009), 164.
146.
It provided for the competence of the Swiss commercial arbitration having its seat in Geneva.
147.
See supra at Sect. 6.1 et seq.
148.
See, e.g. Albon (trading as NA Carriage Co) v Naza Motor Trading Sdn Bhd and another (No 3) [2007] EWHC 665 (Ch), 2 All ER (Comm) 513.
149.
See also Albon (trading as NA Carriage Co) v Naza Motor Trading Sdn Bhd and another (No 3) [2007] EWHC 665 (Ch), 2 All ER (Comm) 513, Lightman J at [20] and, with respect to German legal order, Voit (2011), Rn. 1.
150.
Cf. also BayObLG 13.5.2003, 4Z Sch 35/02.
151.
Republic and Canton of Geneva Judiciary, Court of First Instance, 18 April 2008 at 2.1.
152.
Similarly see also Hirsch (2009), 168.
153.
See, e.g. Poudret and Cottier (1995), 387, who noted that while the solution must certainly be approved, the “motivation behind it, however, rests on a distinction unpersuasive and even unfounded” (translation by the author herself); Meyer (1996), 379, who pointed out, e.g. that Article II(3) of the New York Convention does provide neither authority nor duty to examine the arbitration agreement.
154.
Parliamentary Initiative from 20 March 2008, 08.417, Bundesgesetz vom 18. Dezember 1987 über das internationale Privatrecht, Änderung von Artikel 7. Status at http://www.parlament.ch/d/suche/seiten/geschaefte.aspx?gesch_id=20080417. See also von Segesser (2010).
155.
English translation quoted from von Segesser (2010). The German version of the proposal states: “Bei internationalen Angelegenheiten fällt das angerufene schweizerische Gericht, unabhängig vom Sitz des Schiedsgerichtes, erst einen Entscheid, wenn das Schiedsgericht über die eigene Zuständigkeit entschieden hat, es sei denn, eine summarische Prüfung ergebe, dass zwischen den Partein keine Schiedsvereinbarung getroffen wurde.”
156.
Parliamentary Initiative from 20 March 2008, 08.417, Bundesgesetz vom 18. Dezember 1987 über das internationale Privatrecht, Änderung von Artikel 7. Translation by the author.
157.
See also supra at Sect. 8.5.2 et seq.
158.
For discussion of the negative effect of Competence–Competence see supra at Sect. 4.5 et seq.
159.
Tschanz (2010), 478.
160.
See supra.
161.
See also the discussion supra at Sect. 8.5.2, paras. 33, 34.
162.
Berger, “Kritische Gedanken zur Revision von Art. 7 IPRG im Lichte eines praktischen Beispiels” 33.
163.
Ibid. 44.
164.
Besson (2011), 574.
165.
See Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Recast), Brussels 14 December 2010, COM(2010) 748 final.
166.
Besson (2011), 576–577.
167.
By its decision from 2 February 2012 the Commission for Legal affairs decided to extend the period for the implementation of the parliamentary initiative to amend Article 7 PILA until the summer session 2014.
168.
Motion, 3 February 2012, 12.3012 – Bundesgesetz über das internationale Privatrecht, die Attraktivität der Schweiz als internationaler Schiedsplatz erhalten. Status at http://www.parlament.ch/d/suche/geschaefte.aspx?gesch_id=20123012.
169.
For a general outline of the distinction see supra at Sect. 8.3, para. 11 et seq.
170.
See also the discussion of the Compagnie de Navigation case supra Sect. 8.5.2, para. 8 et seq.
171.
Compagnie de Navigation at reason 2b.
172.
Similarly also Besson (2011), 597.
173.
Similarly see also Poudret and Cottier (1995), 387.
174.
Compagnie de Navigation at reason 2b (see supra).
175.
See supra at Sect. 5.6.2 et seq.
176.
Cf. Carl Ulrich Mayer, “Die Überprüfung internationaler Schiedsvereinbarungen durch staatliche Gerichte - Überlegungen zu BGE 121 III 38 und BGE 122 III 139” (1996) 14(3)375, who concluded that Article II(3) of the New York Convention shall be construed as only foreseeing a summary review of the arbitration agreement.
177.
See, e.g. Tschanz (2010), 479.
178.
See also Ibid. 479; Poudret, “Le pouvoir d’examen du juge suisse saise d’une exception d’arbitrage” 406 paras 6–7.
179.
In more detail see, e.g. Wenger and Schott, “Artikel 186” notes 12 and 13.
180.
For discussion of Article 186 1^bis PILA see supra Sect. 8.4.1, para. 10 et seq.
181.
Wenger and Schott, “Artikel 186” note 7a and 7b.
182.
See Chap. 7 at Sect. 7.6 et seq.
183.
Cf. § 1032(2) ZPO and the approach adopted by German courts towards the determination of the validity of an arbitration agreement in proceedings pursuant to § 1032(1) ZPO. See supra at Sect. 7.6.2 et seq.
184.
Analytical Commentary on Draft Text of a Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, Report of the Secretary-General, A/CN.9/264, 24 at Article 8 para. 5.
185.
And similarly in French and Italian: “Le tribunal arbitral statue sur sa propre compétence”; “Il tribunale arbitrale decide da sé sulla propria competenza”.
186.
§ 1040(1) ZPO.
187.
Arbitration Act 1996, s 9.
188.
Wenger, “Article 186” 461 para. 3.
189.
E.g. neither the Concordat nor the PILA contained a provision providing expressly for the possibility to seek declaratory relief as to the validity of the arbitration agreement with the courts.
190.
See supra at Sect. 8.5.2, para. 15 et seq.
191.
Ali and Fahd Shobokshi and General Agencies Corporation v Saiecom SA and Nicola Rivelli translation from van den Berg (1990) 505–508, 505 para. 4.
192.
See, e.g. Segesser and Schramm (2010), 942; Wenger and Schott, “Artikel 186” note 4.
193.
AIR Ltd. and T. Holdings Ltd. v International Air Transport Association and C. SA (see supra). See also comment by Roney and Geisinger (2005), 67.
194.
The International Air Transport Association (IATA) is a Canadian company carrying out business in the area of international carriage by air. IATA also organises arbitration of disputes relating to that area. The IATA Rules of Arbitration provide in Article 10 that an arbitral tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to rule on its own jurisdiction.
195.
AIR Ltd. and T. Holdings Ltd. v International Air Transport Association and C. SA at 743 para. 22.
196.
See Art. 324(2)(c) and (d) of the Geneva Civil Procedure Code.
197.
AIR Ltd. and T. Holdings Ltd. v International Air Transport Association and C. SA at 746.
198.
See, e.g. Federal Supreme Court, 27 February 1992, F. Anstalt v T. Company Ltd., BGE 118 Ia 20 at reason 2a. See also Segesser and Schramm (2010), 929; Wolfgang Peter and Thomas Legler, “Artikel 179” in Honsell and others (eds), “Basler Kommentar Internationales Privatrecht” note 40.
199.
Translation by the Swiss Chambers’ Arbitration Institution. In German: “Ist ein staatlicher Richter mit der Ernennung eines Schiedsrichters betraut, so muss er diesem Begehren stattgeben, es sei denn, eine summarische Prüfung ergebe, dass zwischen den Partein keine Schiedsvereinbarung besteht.”
200.
Wolfgang Peter and Thomas Legler, “Artikel 179” in Honsell and others (eds), “Basler Kommentar Internationales Privatrecht” note 40.
201.
Federal Supreme Court, 27 February 1992, F. Anstalt v T. Company Ltd. at reason 5b.
202.
Peter and Legler, “Artikel 179” note 40. But cf. Obergericht Zürich, 19.11.2004, OGer ZH, ZR 2005, 71.
203.
See, e.g. Ali and Fahd Shobokshi and General Agencies Corporation v Saiecom SA and Nicola Rivelli. See also Federal Supreme Court, 14 November 1979, RAL v Wetco Ltd. in Semaine Judiciare 1980, pp. 444–445.
204.
For criticism of the approach to Article 7 PILA on similar grounds see, e.g. Poudret and Besson (2007), 457 et seq; Berti (2007), note 8; Poudret, “Le pouvoir d’examen du juge suisse saise d’une exception d’arbitrage” 406 paras 6–7; Tschanz (2010), 478.
205.
Similarly also Berti (2007), note 8.
206.
See supra at Sect. 8.3, para. 15 et seq.
207.
See, e.g. Tschanz (2010), 479.
208.
See, e.g. Ibid. 479; Poudret, “Le pouvoir d’examen du juge suisse saise d’une exception d’arbitrage” 406 paras 6–7.
209.
Tschanz (2010), 479.
210.
See note above on citing Berti.
211.
Tschanz (2010), 483.
212.
See supra at Sect. 8.5.2 et seq.
213.
Similarly see also Tschanz (2010), 480.
214.
See supra at Sect. 7.6.4.3, paras. 13, 14 et seq.
215.
See also the discussion of the binding effect of courts’ decisions in the Chap. 7 at Sect. 7.7 et seq.
216.
See, e.g. Federal Supreme Court, 13 September 2004 (see supra), at 7.3; Federal Supreme Court, 19 April 1994, Emirats Arabes Unis et consorts v Westland Helicopters Limited et Tribunal arbitral, BGE 120 II 155 at reason 3b/bb; Segesser and Schramm (2010), 942; Müller (2004), 115; Poudret and Cottier (1995), 389.
217.
Wenger and Schott, “Artikel 186” note 10.
218.
Poudret, “Le pouvoir d’examen du juge suisse saise d’une exception d’arbitrage” 406.
219.
See Wenger and Schott, “Artikel 186” note 8; Segesser and Schramm (2010), 942; see note above about Berti, note 10; Müller (2004), 115.
220.
Wenger, “Article 186” 463 para. 8.
221.
See supra at Sect. 7.7 et seq.
222.
See supra at Sect. 8.5.3 et seq.
223.
See supra at Sect. 8.6.2.2, para. 17.
224.
Fondation M v Banque X (see supra) at reason 2b.
225.
Compagnie de Navigation at reason 3b.
226.
See supra at Sect. 8.6.4 et seq.
227.
The Federal Supreme Court, 14 November 1979, RAL v Wetco Ltd. in Semaine Judiciare 1980 pp. 444–445.
228.
Federal Supreme Court, 13 September 2004, at para. 7.3.
229.
Wenger and Schott, “Artikel 186” note 8; Segesser and Schramm (2010), 942.
230.
See generally Chap. 6 at Sect. 6.1 et seq. But see also the Conclusion regarding the application of English law at Sect. 6.6 et seq.
231.
See supra at Sect. 7.8 et seq.
232.
Ibid.

References

Berti SV (2007) Artikel 7. In: Honsell H et al (eds) Basler Kommentar Internationales Privatrecht, 2nd edn. Helbing Lichtenhahn Verlag, Basel
Google Scholar
Besson S (2003) Réflexions sur la jurisprudence suisse récente rendue en matière d'arbitrage international. ASA Bull 21(3):475
Google Scholar
Besson S (2011) 'Réflexions sur le projet de modification de l'article 7 LDIP (initiative Lüscher). ASA Bull 29(3):574
Google Scholar
Blessing M (1999) Introduction to arbitration – Swiss and international perspectives, vol 10, Swiss commercial law series. Helbing & Lichtenhahn, Basel
Google Scholar
Born G (2009) International commercial arbitration. Kluwer Law International, The Hague
Google Scholar
Bucher A (1988) Le nouvel arbitrage international en Suisse. Bale, Frankfurt am Main
Google Scholar
Geisinger E, Frossard V (2004) Challenge and revision of the award. In: Kaufmann-Kohler G, Stucki B (eds) International arbitration in Switzerland: a handbook for practitioners. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, p 135
Google Scholar
Geisinger E, Lévy L (2003) Lis Alibi Pendens in International Commercial Arbitration. ICC Int Court Arbitration Bull; Complex Arbitrations - Special Supplement 55
Google Scholar
Hirsch L (2009) Decisions from the Geneva courts on the validity of arbitration agreements: Note – 18 April 2008 – The Geneva Court of Appeal. ASA Bull 27(1):164
Google Scholar
Knoepfler F (2002) Les décisions rendues par l'arbitre à la suite d'un examen 'Prima Facie''. ASA Bull 20(4):587
Google Scholar
Lalive P, Poudret J-F, Reymond C (eds) (1989) Le droit de l'arbitrage interne et international en Suisse. Éditions Payot, Lausanne
Google Scholar
Liatowitsch M (2001) Die Anwendung der Litispendenzregeln von Art. 9 IRPG durch schweizerische Schiedsgerichte: Ein Paradoxon? Überlegungen zu einem Bundesgerichtsentscheid vom 14. Mai 2001 im Lichte von BGE 124 III 83. ASA Bull 19(3):427
Google Scholar
McLachlan C, Nygh PE (1996) Transnational tort litigation: jurisdictional principles. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Google Scholar
Merkin R (1991) Arbitration law (Service Issue No. 55, 15 April 2010). Informa, London
Google Scholar
Meyer CU (1996) 'Die Überprüfung internationaler Schiedsvereinbarungen durch staatliche Gerichte - Überlegungen zu BGE 121 III 38 und BGE 122 III 139. ASA Bull 14(3):401
Google Scholar
Müller C (2004) International arbitration: a guide to the complete Swiss case law (unreported and reported). Schulthess, Thomson, Zürich, London
Google Scholar
Müller-Chen M (2011) Precedent in Switzerland. In: International dispute resolution: volume 3. German Law Publishers, St. Gallen
Google Scholar
Perret F (2001) Parallel actions pending before an arbitral tribunal and a state court: the solution under Swiss law. In: Karrer PA (ed) Arbitral tribunals or state courts - who must deter to whom (ASA Special Supplement No. 15). Swiss Arbitration Association, Basel, p 65
Google Scholar
Poudret J-F, Besson S (2007) Comparative law of international arbitration, 2nd edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London
Google Scholar
Poudret J-F, Cottier G (1995) Remarques sur l'application de l'article II de la Convention de New York (Note – 16 janvier 1995 – Tribunal féderal). ASA Bull 13(3):386
Google Scholar
Roney DP, Geisinger E (2005) Switzerland: Swiss application for an “anti-arbitration” injunction. Int Arbitration Law Rev 8(5):67
Google Scholar
Samuel A (1991) A critical look at the reform of Swiss arbitration law. Arbitration Int 7(1):30
Google Scholar
Scherer M (2001) Editors note: when should an arbitral tribunal sitting in Switzerland confronted with parallel litigation abroad stay the arbitration? ASA Bull 19(3):451
Google Scholar
Söderlund C (2005) Lis Pendens, Res Judicata and the issue of parallel judicial proceedings. J Int Arbitration 22(4):301
Google Scholar
Tschanz P-Y (2010) De l'opportunité de modifier l'art 7 LDIP'. ASA Bull 28(3):479
Google Scholar
van den Berg AJ (ed) (1990) Yearbook commercial arbitration XV. Kluwer Law International, The Hague
Google Scholar
van den Berg AJ (ed) (1996) Yearbook commercial arbitration XXI. Kluwer Law International, Deventer
Google Scholar
Voit W (2011) §1032 Schiedsvereinbarung und Klage vor Gericht. In: Musielak H-J (ed) Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung (Musielak/Voit), 8th edn. Verlag Franz Vahlen, München
Google Scholar
von Segesser G (2010) Possible reinforcement of the negative effect of the ‘competence-competence’ principle in Swiss legislation. Kluwer Arbitration Blog, p 911, at http://kluwerarbitrationblog.com/blog/2010/02/05/possible-reinforcement-of-the-negative-effect-of-the-%E2%80%9Ccompetence-competence%E2%80%9D-principle-in-swiss-legislation/
von Segesser G, Schramm D (2010) Switzerland. In: Mistelis LA (ed) Concise international arbitration. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn
Google Scholar
Voyame J (2004) Introduction. In: Dessemontet F, Ansay T (eds) Introduction to Swiss law. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, p 1
Google Scholar
Wenger W (2000) Article 186. In: International arbitration in Switzerland: an introduction to and commentary on articles 176–194 of the Swiss private international law statute. Helbing & Lichtenhahn, Basel
Google Scholar
Wiebecke M (2011) Switzerland. In: Carter JH (ed) The international arbitration review, 2nd edn. Law Business Research Ltd, London, p 443
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Department of Law, Aarhus University, Aarhus C, Denmark
Sandra Synková

Authors

Sandra Synková
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Synková, S. (2013). The Application of Article 7 of the Swiss Private International Law Act (Switzerland). In: Courts' Inquiry into Arbitral Jurisdiction at the Pre-Award Stage. Springer, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00134-0_8

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00134-0_8
Published: 26 April 2013
Publisher Name: Springer, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-00133-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-00134-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics