Swiss Civil Procedure Code
(Civil Procedure Code, CPC)

¹ A party may re­quest the or­din­ary court that has jur­is­dic­tion un­der Art­icle 356 para­graph 1 to re­view an ar­bit­ral award if:

a.

the party sub­sequently dis­cov­ers sig­ni­fic­ant facts or de­cis­ive evid­ence that could not have been sub­mit­ted in the earli­er pro­ceed­ings, ex­clud­ing facts and evid­ence that arose after the ar­bit­ral award was made;

b.

crim­in­al pro­ceed­ings have es­tab­lished that the ar­bit­ral award was in­flu­enced to the det­ri­ment of the party con­cerned by a felony or mis­de­mean­our, even if no one is con­victed by a crim­in­al court; if crim­in­al pro­ceed­ings are not pos­sible, proof may be provided in some oth­er man­ner;

c.

it is claimed that the ac­cept­ance, with­draw­al or set­tle­ment of the claim is in­val­id;

d.¹⁹⁴

a ground for chal­lenge un­der Art­icle 367 para­graph 1 let­ter c only came to light after con­clu­sion of the ar­bit­ra­tion pro­ceed­ings des­pite ex­er­cising due di­li­gence and no oth­er leg­al rem­edy is avail­able.

² The re­view on the grounds of a vi­ol­a­tion of the ECHR¹⁹⁵ may be re­ques­ted if:

a.¹⁹⁶

the European Court of Hu­man Rights has de­term­ined in a fi­nal judg­ment (Art. 44 ECHR) that the ECHR or its pro­to­cols have been vi­ol­ated, or the case has been con­cluded by means of a friendly set­tle­ment (Art. 39 ECHR);

b.

com­pens­a­tion is not an ap­pro­pri­ate rem­edy for the ef­fects of the vi­ol­a­tion; and

c.

the re­view is ne­ces­sary to rem­edy the vi­ol­a­tion.