Header Image

Swiss Supreme Court does not consider merits of setting aside petition if tribunal declined jurisdiction based on parties' actual consent to terminate arbitration agreement

28 October 2013

Authors: Nathalie Voser, Sonja Stark-Traber

In decision 4A_305/2013, the Swiss Supreme Court refused to  consider the petitioners' challenge of the arbitral tribunal's finding, that the parties had consented to terminate their arbitration agreement.

In a German-language decision dated 2 October 2013 and published on 16 October 2013, the Swiss Supreme Court refused to consider the merits of a petition to set aside an arbitral award in which the arbitral tribunal had found that it lacked jurisdiction because the parties had agreed to terminate the arbitration agreement.

The petitioners argued that the award should be set aside on the ground that the tribunal had wrongly declined jurisdiction or alternatively had violated its right to be heard, under Articles 190(2)(b) and (d) of PILA respectively. However, the court held that the tribunal's finding that the parties had actually consented to terminate the arbitration agreement was a finding of fact, not law. As such, it was not capable of review by the Supreme Court. (Decision 4A_305/2013.)

Download PDF
Published in Practical Law Arbitration

Back to overview


Elliott Geisinger
Elliott Geisinger

Nathalie Voser
Nathalie Voser

Show team

Our International Arbitration Group

Drawing on an outstanding combination of skills and resources, Schellenberg Wittmer’s GAR30 recognized Inter-national Arbitration Group provides representation at the highest level in a broad range of complex international arbitration matters, from critical pre-arbitration injunctions to effective enforcement strategies.

For more information:

Visit Practice Area Site
Download Factsheet