SWEDEN Trends and Developments Contributed by: Björn Tude, Daniel Waerme, Caroline Gulliksson Dock and Sandra Aljassani, Gernandt & Danielsson
Conclusion The 2026 developments in Swedish arbitration law share a common logic: when consequential questions reach Swedish courts or arise from SCC proceedings, they are engaged on the merits and resolved by refer - ence to principle. That has been true of investment treaty jurisdiction, and it has so far been proven true at the intersection of EU sanctions and arbitrability. The SCC’s 2025 statistics confirm that international parties continue to act on that assessment. Sweden does not become arbitration-friendly anew each year. It simply continues to be.
and introduced substantial uncertainty for any arbi - tral tribunal, regardless of seat, administering disputes with an EU sanctions dimension. The Advocate General did not go there. On arbitrabil - ity, the Opinion draws a careful distinction: the no- claims clause prohibits the satisfaction of covered claims, not their submission to arbitration. Parties therefore remain free to bring sanctions-related dis - putes before a tribunal. On public policy, the Advocate General concluded that the no-claims clause forms part of EU public policy, and that national courts must review compliance of their own motion when hearing set-aside applications. On scope, the Opinion found that the clause precludes satisfaction of a repayment claim for an advance paid in respect of goods whose supply was prevented by the restrictive measures. The Opinion also recognises that a claim may be formally acknowledged – whether by declaratory judgment or a decision with suspended enforcement – even where it cannot currently be satisfied, preserving a creditor’s position for when circumstances change. The CJEU’s judgment is expected in due course, and the Opinion is not binding. Should the CJEU follow it, the prevailing consensus on arbitrability would be confirmed rather than reversed, and the boundary between what arbitration can adjudicate and what it cannot would remain where practitioners have long understood it to be. That outcome is not yet guar - anteed, but the Opinion is a considered and princi - pled one, and it reflects the view that has prevailed in international arbitration scholarship. For parties who have chosen arbitration to resolve disputes that may involve EU sanctions exposure, it is a significant, if interim, reassurance.
976 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook