Document ID: /roh_data/filtered/swiss_laws_in_ROHinterleaved.jsonl.gz/19646

This text was translated from EN into Rumantsch Grischun.

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. 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. The review on the grounds of a violation of the ECHR may be requested if: a. 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; andc. the review is necessary to remedy the violation. Inserted by Annex No 2 of the FA of 19 June 2020, in force since 1 Jan. 2021  (AS 2020 4179; BBl 2018 7163). SR 0.101 Amended by Annex No 2 of the FA of 1 Oct. 2021, in force since 1 July 2022  (AS 2022 289; BBl 2021 300, 889).

Ina partida po pretender la revisiun da la sentenzia da cumpromiss tar la dretgira statala ch’è cumpetenta tenor l’artitgel 356 alinea 1, sche:a. ella vegn a savair posteriuramain fatgs relevants u chatta meds da cumprova decisivs ch’ella n’ha betg pudì preschentar en la procedura precedenta; exclus èn fatgs e meds da cumprova ch’èn resultads pir suenter la sentenzia da cumpromiss;b. ina procedura penala ha mussà che la sentenzia da cumpromiss era vegnida influenzada tras in crim u tras in delict a disfavur da la partida respectiva; ina condemnaziun tras la dretgira penala n’è betg necessaria; sch’ina procedura penala n’è betg pussaivla, po la cumprova vegnir procurada sin in’autra via;c. i vegn fatg valair che la renconuschientscha dal plant, la retratga dal plant u l’accord tras la dretgira da cumpromiss n’hajan nagin effect;d. in motiv da refusa tenor l’artitgel 367 alinea 1 litera c è vegnì scuvrì, malgrà l’attenziun necessaria, pir suenter la terminaziun da la procedura da cumpromiss e nagins auters meds legals na stattan a disposiziun. La revisiun pervia d’ina violaziun da la CEDU po vegnir pretendida, sche:a. il Tribunal europeic dals dretgs umans ha constatà en ina sentenzia definitiva (art. 44 CEDU) che la CEDU u ils protocols latiers sajan vegnids violads, u ha terminà il cas tras ina cunvegna amicabla (art. 39 CEDU);b. ina indemnisaziun n’è betg adattada per cumpensar las consequenzas da la violaziun; ec. la revisiun è necessaria per eliminar la violaziun. Integrà tras la cifra 2 da l’agiunta da la LF dals 19 da zer. 2020, en vigur dapi il 1. da schan. 2021 (AS 2020 4179; BBl 2018 7163). SR 0.101 Versiun tenor la cifra 2 da l’agiunta da la LF dal 1. d’oct. 2021, en vigur dapi il 1. da fan. 2022 (AS 2022 289; BBl 2021 300, 889).