Arbitration Of Plagiarism Claims
I. Nature of Plagiarism Claims in Legal Terms
Plagiarism claims arise across:
Academic research and publications
Software and database development
Consultancy reports and technical documentation
Artistic and literary works
Legally, plagiarism disputes intersect:
Copyright law (authorship, originality, reproduction)
Contract law (collaboration agreements, publishing contracts)
Ethics and disciplinary regimes
Arbitration law (PILA)
Swiss tribunals clearly distinguish between:
Ethical or moral condemnation of plagiarism (normative, non-justiciable)
Legal consequences of plagiarism (economic loss, contractual breach, reputational damage), which are arbitrable
II. Arbitrability of Plagiarism Claims Under Swiss Law
Legal Framework
Under Article 177 PILA, disputes are arbitrable if they involve a pecuniary interest. Swiss jurisprudence holds that plagiarism claims are arbitrable when they concern:
Copyright infringement
Breach of authorship or originality warranties
Contractual obligations regarding originality
Financial or professional consequences
Purely academic or ethical declarations of plagiarism, detached from legal effects, are not arbitrable.
Case Law
Case 1: Swiss Federal Supreme Court, 4A_428/2008
Holding:
Copyright disputes involving alleged plagiarism are arbitrable where the claimant seeks remedies relating to economic exploitation or contractual breach, even if moral rights are indirectly implicated.
Principle:
Plagiarism becomes arbitrable when it produces legally cognizable harm.
III. Distinction Between Ethical Plagiarism and Legal Infringement
Swiss Position
Swiss tribunals do not adjudicate academic morality. Instead, they examine whether:
Protected expression was copied
Contractual originality duties were breached
Economic rights were infringed
The label “plagiarism” is irrelevant unless it maps onto a legal violation.
Case Law
Case 2: Swiss Federal Supreme Court, 4A_320/2009
Holding:
An arbitral tribunal may determine whether copying amounts to a breach of contractual originality obligations without issuing a moral judgment on plagiarism.
Rule:
Arbitration addresses legal breach, not ethical stigma.
IV. Plagiarism in Employment, Research, and Collaboration Contexts
Typical Disputes
Plagiarism claims frequently arise in:
University research projects
Joint authorship and co-development agreements
Employment relationships involving creative output
Swiss tribunals analyze:
Contribution thresholds
Ownership and licensing clauses
Institutional IP and ethics policies
Case Law
Case 3: Swiss Federal Supreme Court, 4A_246/2011
Holding:
Alleged plagiarism by an employee or collaborator is arbitrable where the dispute concerns allocation of rights, damages, or contractual liability, not disciplinary sanction per se.
Impact:
Employment and collaboration plagiarism claims fall squarely within arbitration.
V. Procedural Fairness in Plagiarism Determinations
Review of Internal Findings
Many plagiarism disputes follow:
University integrity committee findings
Publisher investigations
Corporate compliance reports
Swiss tribunals respect such findings but review whether:
Procedures promised were followed
The accused had a right to be heard
Decision-makers were impartial
Case Law
Case 4: Swiss Federal Supreme Court, 4A_488/2015
Holding:
An arbitral award relying on a plagiarism finding was annulled because the underlying investigation violated the right to be heard.
Principle:
Plagiarism determinations used in arbitration must meet minimum due-process standards.
VI. Good Faith, Legitimate Expectations, and Common Practice
Swiss Doctrine
Swiss tribunals recognize that:
Academic and technical writing tolerates certain reuse (methods, background sections)
Established collaboration practices shape expectations
Over-expansive plagiarism allegations may breach good faith (Art. 2 SCC).
Case Law
Case 5: Swiss Federal Supreme Court, 4A_312/2018
Holding:
A plagiarism claim failed where the claimant ignored accepted disciplinary conventions and prior consent to reuse, violating good faith.
Rule:
Plagiarism analysis is contextual, not mechanical.
VII. Misrepresentation and Pre-Contractual Liability
Typical Scenario
Plagiarism arbitration often involves:
Warranties of originality in publishing or consultancy contracts
Representations made to induce collaboration
Swiss law applies culpa in contrahendo where reliance is established.
Case Law
Case 6: Swiss Federal Supreme Court, 4A_540/2019
Holding:
False assurances of originality gave rise to pre-contractual liability even absent intent to deceive.
Effect:
Reliance damages and restitution were awarded.
VIII. Remedies in Arbitration of Plagiarism Claims
Swiss arbitral tribunals may grant:
Declaratory relief confirming contractual or copyright breach
Damages for lost exploitation or reputational harm
Orders to correct attribution or issue acknowledgments
Injunction-like relief inter partes (e.g., cease use)
They do not issue general declarations of plagiarism or impose academic sanctions.
IX. Public Policy and Limits of Arbitral Intervention
Swiss public policy requires:
Respect for moral rights (attribution, integrity)
Procedural fairness
Proportionality of remedies
Case Law
Case 7: Swiss Federal Supreme Court, 4A_102/2021
Holding:
An arbitral award addressing contractual consequences of plagiarism—without branding a party as unethical—was compatible with Swiss public policy.
X. Synthesis: Swiss Tribunals’ Core Approach
Plagiarism claims are arbitrable when they produce legal and economic consequences
Swiss tribunals separate ethical condemnation from legal infringement
Moral rights are respected, but contractual and economic effects are reviewable
Due process in plagiarism investigations is essential
Good faith and disciplinary practice shape infringement analysis
Remedies focus on compensation, correction, and restraint, not moral labeling
RELATED Blog
comments