Facts
On January 23, 1990, the heirs of the late [C.] signed an agreement relating to the funds of the deceased, held by two Liechtenstein-based foundations, which had been transferred to Bank X. in Geneva. By this act, they agreed to divide the assets of one of these two foundations into two equal parts and to allocate one of these parts to a new Liechtenstein-based foundation, the M. Foundation, whose beneficiary would be Mr. [C.], the son of the deceased.
According to Art. 6 of the said agreement, Mr. [L.], a lawyer in Geneva and administrator of Bank X. since January 1989, would be responsible, among other operations, for the establishment of the M. Foundation. Art. IV of the supplementary statutes of the latter provided for the designation of the said bank as the supervisory body of the foundation.
By a mandate contract concluded on the same date between the two representatives of the aforementioned heirs and Mr. [L.], the latter was invited to establish the M. Foundation and to designate Bank X. as the supervisory body. Art. VI of the contract subjected the execution of the mandate to the rules of the Geneva Bar Association appearing on the power of attorney signed by the representatives of the heirs.
The M. Foundation in formation, represented by Mr. [L.], and Bank X. signed, on January 25, 1990, an agreement under which the bank was designated as the supervisory body and would receive, as remuneration for its activity, the sum of 6,000 francs per year to be debited from the account of the M. Foundation. The agreement of January 25, 1990 also contained an arbitration clause providing for recourse to arbitration for any dispute.
In February 1993, the lawyer for the members of the M. Foundation Council summoned Bank X. to transfer all the foundation's assets to Bank Y. in Geneva. The bank complied at the end of the month in question. The foundation contested the validity of these operations and sued Bank X. before the Geneva courts in order to obtain the payment of the sums debited, including 24,000 francs corresponding to the remuneration of the supervisory body.
In its response, Bank X. raised an exception of arbitration, concluding that the court should declare itself incompetent ratione materiae to rule on the conclusion seeking the restitution of the 24,000 francs.
Considerations
The Court of Justice of the Canton of Geneva confirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance, which had ruled in favor of the exception of arbitration raised by Bank X.
The Federal Tribunal dismissed the appeal for reform of the M. Foundation. It considered…