Pursuant to Article 123(2)(a) of the Federal Supreme Court Act:

As there is no express rule on revision in the Swiss law applicable to international arbitration, and in accordance with the long standing practice of the Swiss Supreme Court, Article 123(2)(a) applies by analogy to the revision of international arbitral awards.

On 25 July 2011, an ad-hoc arbitral tribunal seated in Lugano ordered an Italian company(A), to pay unpaid money to the Spanish management company (B) of a cycling team (C). In doing so, the arbitral tribunal rejected A's arguments that the sponsorship agreement entered into by A and B on 27 September 2010 had been terminated.

On 14 December 2011, A petitioned the Swiss Supreme Court for revision of the arbitral award on the basis of Article 123(2)(a) of the Federal Supreme Court Act. According to A, there were new material facts that it had learned of after the rendering of the award on 25 July 2011 which justified a revision of the arbitral tribunal's findings.

The new facts relied upon in A's application were found in news articles that appeared in the Italian press in September 2011 (that is, after the award). The articles mentioned the opening of criminal proceedings against one of the members of the cycling team C, on grounds of alleged doping. A added that the cyclist concerned also appeared on a confidential list of athletes suspected of doping. A maintained that, under the sponsorship agreement, B was required to ensure that the members of cycling team C did not use performance-enhancing drugs and that, in the event of default, the sponsorship agreement could have been terminated immediately.

The Swiss Supreme Court rejected A's petition for revision.

The court began by reaffirming its jurisprudence on the standard for revision of an arbitral award. Revision pursuant to Article 123(2) is only available where:

Applying this standard to the facts of the case, the Swiss Supreme Court had little difficulty finding that the conditions for revision were not met. The newly discovered facts presented by the applicant as a basis for the revision took for granted that the athlete in question had, indeed, made use of performance-enhancing drugs. The applicant presumed from this hypothesis that the Spanish management company B did not satisfy its obligation to supervise members of the cycling team C. The Swiss Supreme Court concluded that the applicant's hypothesis was the product of speculation. According to the court, the applicant did not explain how the newly discovered facts were capable of changing the factual findings relied upon as a basis of the underlying arbitral award. Thus, the new "facts" were not considered to be relevant for the purposes of Article 123(2) of the Federal Supreme Court Act. The application was rejected on this basis.

This decision left open the question as to whether "facts", as defined by Article 123(2)(a) of the Federal Supreme Court Act, could emanate from newspaper articles and website postings. The case does, however, underline the importance of demonstrating that any new facts or evidence are of a nature to influence and change the findings of the underlying award.