SWEDEN Law and Practice Contributed by: Björn Tude, Daniel Waerme, Caroline Gulliksson Dock and Sandra Aljassani, Gernandt & Danielsson
removal of the arbitrator. This application must be filed within 30 days of receiving the tribunal’s decision. The arbitral tribunal may continue the proceedings while the district court considers the challenge. 4.5 Arbitrator Requirements Arbitrators are required to be impartial and independ - ent. This duty applies to all arbitrators, irrespective of how or by whom they are appointed. A potential arbi - trator must immediately disclose any circumstances that might give rise to doubts about their impartiality or independence (Section 9 of the SAA). Consistent with international practice, these assessments are commonly guided by the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration. These standards are designed to protect the integrity and legitimacy of the arbitral process. The arbitral tribunal is authorised to rule on its own jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. Swedish arbi - tration law recognises the principle of competence- competence pursuant to Section 2 (1) of the SAA. A review of jurisdiction is conducted only if a party raises an objection and is limited to the grounds and circum - stances invoked by that party. However, regardless of whether an objection is made, the arbitral tribunal is required to consider ex officio whether the dispute is arbitrable under Swedish law. 5.2 Circumstances for Court Intervention 5. Jurisdiction 5.1 Challenges to Jurisdiction Swedish courts adopt a restrictive approach to review - ing questions of arbitral jurisdiction. As a main rule, the Court of Appeal may only address jurisdiction in connection with challenge proceedings against a final award (Section 34 of the SAA). An exception exists under Section 2 of the SAA, which allows the Court of Appeal to review a tribunal’s jurisdiction during ongo - ing proceedings if the tribunal has issued a separate decision affirming its competence. This mechanism provides a procedural safeguard in situations where jurisdiction is genuinely uncertain, giving both parties and the tribunal the option to seek judicial confirma - tion before the arbitration proceeds to a final award.
In practice, the courts demonstrate considerable reluctance to revisit jurisdictional determinations, even in challenge proceedings. In NJA 2019 p 171, the Supreme Court emphasised that an arbitral tribunal is generally best placed to assess its own jurisdiction, and that judicial review should therefore start from the premise that the tribunal’s interpretation and evalua - tion of the evidence is correct. 5.3 Timing of Challenge An arbitral tribunal has the authority to rule on its own jurisdiction. Should the arbitral tribunal issue a deci - sion establishing its jurisdiction, any objecting party may apply to the Court of Appeal. Such an application must be filed within 30 days from the date the deci - sion was received from the tribunal. Importantly, the arbitral proceedings are not stayed by this referral; the tribunal may continue with the arbitration pending the court’s decision. Conversely, if the arbitral tribunal finds that it lacks jurisdiction and dismisses the case, that decision may be challenged to the Court of Appeal within two months from receipt of the award. If the arbitral tribunal does not render a decision on its own jurisdiction prior to the final award, a party may still raise jurisdictional objections when challenging the final award before the Court of Appeal. However, under Swedish law such objections must have been raised at the earliest possible stage of the arbitration, typically in the party’s first substantive submission. A failure to do so will generally be deemed a waiver. 5.4 Standard of Judicial Review for Jurisdiction/Admissibility Under Swedish law, courts are entitled to conduct a full review of jurisdictional issues (de novo). The competence-competence principle in Section 2 (1) of the SAA means that arbitral tribunals may rule on their own jurisdiction in the first instance, but their determinations are not binding on the courts. In prac - tice, however, Swedish courts exercise considerable restraint. In NJA 2019 p 171, the Supreme Court held that arbitral tribunals are generally best placed to assess their own jurisdiction, and that the starting point for judicial review should therefore be to assume the tribunal’s interpretation and evaluation of the evi -
964 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook