Facts
Parties:
Appellant: [A.] , a Turkish company engaged in the trade of chemical products.
Respondent: [B.] , a Turkish subsidiary of the American [B.] group.
Background:
The parties concluded a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) on April 27, 2015, for the establishment of a joint subsidiary, [C.] . The JVA contained an arbitration clause for disputes.
Dispute:
The claimant (appellant) terminated the JVA in September 2017 due to breach of contract and claimed damages. The defendant (respondent) contested this and filed a counterclaim.
Arbitration proceedings:
The arbitral tribunal in Basel dismissed both the claim and the counterclaim and ordered the claimant to pay party compensation to the defendant. The claimant filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court, inter alia, due to bias of the arbitrators and violation of the right to be heard.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court examines the appeal under the conditions of Arts. 190-192 PILA. It bases its judgment on the facts established by the arbitral tribunal and cannot correct CO supplement the arbitral tribunal's findings of fact unless there are admissible grounds for appeal under Art. 190 para. 2 PILA.
The appellant alleges an improper composition of the arbitral tribunal due to bias of the chairperson and an arbitrator. The Federal Supreme Court applies a strict standard to the assessment of alleged bias of an arbitrator. Procedural errors CO an incorrect substantive decision are not sufficient to establish the appearance of bias. The appellant cannot demonstrate that the chairperson lacked the required independence and impartiality. The chairperson only agreed to the law firm change after the decision was made, so no influence on the…