SWEDEN Law and Practice Contributed by: Andreas Eriksson, Anders Arthur, David Nykvist and Saga Hanson, TIME DANOWSKY Advokatbyrå
9.4 Grounds for Resisting Enforcement Foreign court judgments are generally not enforce- able in Sweden. The most notable exception to this concerns judgments from other EU countries which are enforceable under the EU Brussels I Regulation. When enforcement is sought under the Brussels I Regulation, the debtor may apply for enforcement to be refused in the limited circumstances set out in the Regulation. These include cases where enforcement would be contrary to Swedish public policy, in the case of default judgments without proper service, or if the judgment is incompatible with another judgment. The grounds for refusal of foreign arbitral awards pur- suant to the Arbitration Act correspond to those set out in Article V of the 1958 New York Convention. In short, these are: • that there was no valid arbitration agreement; • that the party against whom enforcement is sought was not given the opportunity to present its case in the arbitration proceedings; • that the award deals with a matter that was not covered by the request for arbitration or the arbi- tration agreement; • that there were errors in the composition of the tribunal or in how the arbitration proceedings were conducted; • that the award is not yet binding or has been set aside or suspended; • that the matter decided in the award was not arbi- trable; or • that enforcement would be contrary to Swedish public policy.
The AI Regulation classifies AI systems used by judi- cial authorities in researching and interpreting facts and the law, and in applying the law to a concrete set of facts, as high risk. The same applies to AI sys- tems intended to be used by alternative dispute res- olution bodies for such purposes. This entails strict requirements regarding transparency, data quality and human oversight. A key principle is that the use of AI tools can sup- port the decision-making power of judges or judicial independence, but should not replace it. The final decision-making must remain a human-driven activity. 10.2 Impact AI is not used for dispute resolution as such, in the sense that decision-making is delegated to AI agents. However, courts, arbitrators, parties and counsel use AI tools to varying degrees for assistance with research, summaries, drafting and various adminis- trative tasks. It remains to be seen what impact AI will have on dis- pute resolution as a whole, beyond gains in efficien- cy. However, an effect that can already be seen is an apparent improvement in the quality of submissions prepared by parties that do not have qualified counsel. 10.3 Future Courts in Sweden generally do not use AI at present, but there are working groups looking into how AI could be implemented. The use of AI in dispute resolution in Sweden is likely to increase gradually, but with a focus on prepara- tory and administrative tasks. It will probably take time before AI, if ever, is entrusted with any decision- making. If that happens, it is likely to start in small, standardised matters, with the possibility for review by judges.
10. Dispute Resolution and AI 10.1 Regulation
Sweden does not currently have any particular domes- tic laws on the use of AI in dispute resolution. Howev- er, the EU’s AI Regulation, which is directly applicable in Sweden, provides a regulatory framework regarding AI that also impacts the use of AI in the context of dispute resolution.
493 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook