The minority authors followed by the CAS rely mainly on two previous alumni. In the first case concerning an arbitrator`s challenge, the Federal Court of Justice found, as an obiter dictum, that a violation of the requirements imposed by the parties to the qualification of the arbitrator (Article 180 (1)a) PILA) – a series of requirements, which go beyond constitutional guarantees – are not sufficient to justify the annulment of the sentence (judgment 4P.292/1993 of 30 June 1994, 4, published in the Bulletin of the Swiss Arbitration Association [ASA], 1997, p. 99 and following, 103 f.). In the second case, the Court expressed doubts that, if the parties were to accept more stringent grounds for challenge than constitutional guarantees, This could be sufficient for the grounds of nullity published in Article 190, paragraph 2 A) a PILA (judgment 4P.188/2001 of 15 October 2001, 2nd, published in the Bulletin of the Swiss Arbitration Association [ASA], 2002, p. 321 and following). These two precedents have clearly not been sufficient to definitively settle the case law in this area once and for all. Moreover, in an earlier case which has the weight of having been published in the official reporter, the Bundesgerichtshof has agreed to file a public appeal against a cantonal judgment on a nullity claim within the meaning of Article 36 A of the Court of Arbitration of 27 March 1969 (CA), a provision which punishes the irregular composition of an arbitrator. In his public appeal, the complainant argued that the Arbitral Tribunal had not been established on a regular basis because a provision of the arbitration rules concerning the number of arbitrators and their appointment by the parties had been arbitrarily exercised (a judgment of 17 March 1976 in the Bucher-Guyer A. G. /Geneva Township Court of Justice and Meikli Co. Ltd., published in ATF 102 IA 493 to 5). In other words, the Federal Court of Justice did not rule at the time that the application of the private law rules adopted by the parties relating to the composition of the arbitral tribunal was beyond its judicial control, as it would not call into question the independence and impartiality of the members of the arbitral tribunal. It should be added that the cases that refer to Girsberger and Voser in their work cited above (p.
238, notes 80 and 81) are irrelevant, in addition to the two precedents I have just mentioned. The same is true of the case published on a case-by-case basis in ATF 117 II 346 at 1, which is cited by the CAS because it deals with the violation of the right to a hearing within the meaning of Article 190, paragraph 2, point d), of the PILA. In the case of a three-arbitrator tribunal, each party appoints an arbitrator and the two arbitrators thus appointed elect the presiding arbitrator.