Facts
A., domiciled in Switzerland, and B., domiciled in Germany, are brothers and shareholders of group X. In 1986, they concluded a "family contract" aimed at unifying the decision-making process within the two family branches. In 1996, A.'s son, C., was appointed manager of company X. GmbH, but this appointment was subsequently revoked at the request of A. B. then demanded the reintegration of C. as manager, invoking the "family contract". A. then filed a request for arbitration to establish that he was not obliged to accept C.'s appointment. The arbitral tribunal granted A.'s request. B. then filed an appeal against this arbitral award, challenging the recusal of the sole arbitrator by the cantonal court. However, the Federal Tribunal ruled that the decision of the cantonal court on the recusal was final and could not be challenged, either directly or indirectly, in the context of the appeal against the arbitral award.Considerations
According to Art. 180(3) PILA, when the parties have not regulated the recusal procedure, the judge at the seat of the arbitral tribunal decides definitively. The Federal Tribunal ruled that this finality means that the decision of the cantonal judge cannot be challenged directly by a constitutional appeal. Furthermore, this…