Search for:
Category

COVID-19

Category

In a decision published on 15th June 2021, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court (“SFSC”) dismissed a challenge to set aside an arbitral award because in its view, the request to reschedule the hearing was merely intended to delay the arbitral proceedings, an intention which is not protected by the right to be heard (case no. 4A_530/2020 (in French)). Factual background In the case at stake, a dispute had arisen between the main shareholders of an…

We are pleased to introduce the third part of our trilogy of brief commentaries on Investment Treaty Protection & Covid-19 driven State Intervention. In Part I, we saw that states had taken invasive measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic; some of those could give rise to significant claims, discussed in Part II. The present Part III is devoted to the defences, which the host states may use to respond to the potential investors’ claims…

States around the world have adopted measures in reaction to the unprecedented nature and scale of the COVID-19 pandemic to curb the spread of coronavirus, ensure healthcare systems are not overrun and, more recently, balance reviving the economy and keeping control of the virus. These wide-ranging and far-reaching measures are not without consequences, particularly on foreign investments. We highlight examples of measures that may have the potential — and for some have already started —…

In its landmark decision under docket no. 18 ONc 3/20s[1], published on 28 September 2020, the Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof “OGH”) established two important principles for arbitral tribunals seated in Austria: The conduct of hearings via videoconference – despite a party’s express objection – lies within the arbitral tribunal’s discretion and does not meet the high threshold of arbitrator challenges. (RS0133230)[2]A negative, non-verbal reaction (here: “eye rolling”) of an arbitrator to a verbal pleading…