Facts
The [X. AG] and the [Y.] Corporation concluded a consulting contract on February 12, 1997. The [Y.] Corporation initiated arbitral proceedings before the Zurich Chamber of Commerce in 2004, which led to an interim decision of February 23, 2007. This decision established the validity of the consulting contract. The [X. AG] then applied to the Federal Supreme Court for revision of the interim decision, as it had found new documents that supported its claim that the consulting contract had served bribery.
The [X. AG] and the [Y.] Corporation were the parties to the arbitral proceedings. The [X. AG] was represented by attorneys Dr. Erich Rüegg and Dr. Frédéric Krauskopf, while the [Y.] Corporation was represented by attorneys Dr. Philipp Habegger and Dr. Marco Stacher.
The Federal Supreme Court had to decide whether the requirements for a revision of the interim decision were met.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court examined whether the requirements for a revision of the interim decision were met. It found that the PILA does not contain provisions on the revision of arbitral tribunal decisions, but the case law of the Federal Supreme Court has filled this gap. The Federal Supreme Court is competent for the revision of all international arbitral awards, regardless of whether they are final, partial or interim awards.
The Federal Supreme Court examined whether the interim decision was binding on the arbitral tribunal and whether the requirements for a revision pursuant to Art. 123 para. 2…