Tillämplig materiell rätt i skiljeförfarande - En studie av partsautonomins gränser i skiljeförfarande och förhållandet till jura novit curia
(2019) LAGF03 20191Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Skiljeförfarande är en tvistlösningsform som används i stor omfattning av kommersiella aktörer såväl i Sverige som utomlands. Förfarandet påminner om rättegång i domstol. Det finns dock vissa avgörande skillnader mellan skiljeförfarande och rättegång vilka belyses i uppsatsen.
I rättegång i domstol gäller principen om jura novit curia. Principens innebörd och räckvidd är visserligen omtvistad, men den kan förenklat sägas innebära att parterna inte behöver bevisa innehållet i gällande rätt, samtidigt som domstolen har en skyldighet att utreda innehållet i densamma. Domare har monopol på rättsanvändningen i svenska domstolar.
Vilket genomslag som principen om jura novit curia har i svenska skiljeförfaranden råder det oenighet om. I... (More) - Skiljeförfarande är en tvistlösningsform som används i stor omfattning av kommersiella aktörer såväl i Sverige som utomlands. Förfarandet påminner om rättegång i domstol. Det finns dock vissa avgörande skillnader mellan skiljeförfarande och rättegång vilka belyses i uppsatsen.
I rättegång i domstol gäller principen om jura novit curia. Principens innebörd och räckvidd är visserligen omtvistad, men den kan förenklat sägas innebära att parterna inte behöver bevisa innehållet i gällande rätt, samtidigt som domstolen har en skyldighet att utreda innehållet i densamma. Domare har monopol på rättsanvändningen i svenska domstolar.
Vilket genomslag som principen om jura novit curia har i svenska skiljeförfaranden råder det oenighet om. I följande uppsats belyses detta ämne med särskilt fokus på parternas möjlighet att träffa för skiljemännen bindande avtal om rättsanvändningen. Det finns stöd både i förarbete och i doktrin för att parterna i skiljeförfarande har en större dispositionsmakt härom än parter i rättegång. Det förefaller vara så att skiljeparterna kan avtala om att skiljemännen endast får använda vissa särskilt utpekade regelverk eller regler, eller inte tillämpa vissa utpekade regler. Om skiljemännen inte följer avtalet är det troligt att en klandertalan mot skiljedomen kan föras med framgång av parterna.
Beträffande avtal som ämnar att binda skiljemännen vid en särskild tolkning av rättsregler är det mer oklart. Det kan emellertid konstateras att en skiljedom inte kan klandras med framgång på grund av att den är materiellt felaktig, vilket kan tala emot att parterna skulle kunna föra en framgångsrik klandertalan mot en skiljedom i vilken skiljemännen inte följt en gemensam tolkningsanvisning.
En slutsats som dras i uppsatsen är att det för parternas vidkommande, till skillnad från vad som gäller vid rättegång, kan finnas fördelar med att skriva regel- och tolkningsanvisningar i strikt processuella termer, för att på så sätt markera att anvisningen inte är en civilrättslig fråga utan en del av uppdragsbeskrivningen till skiljemännen. (Less) - Abstract
- Arbitration is a form of dispute resolution that is used extensively by commercial actors both in Sweden and abroad. The procedure is similar to court proceedings. However, there are some crucial differences between arbitration and trial which are described and analysed in the essay.
In court proceedings, the principle of jura novit curia applies. Although the principle and scope of the principle are controversial, it can be said to mean that the parties do not have to prove the content of the applicable law and that the court has an obligation to investigate the content thereof. The judge has a monopoly on the use of law in Swedish courts.
What impact the principle of jura novit curia has in arbitration proceedings in Sweden is debated.... (More) - Arbitration is a form of dispute resolution that is used extensively by commercial actors both in Sweden and abroad. The procedure is similar to court proceedings. However, there are some crucial differences between arbitration and trial which are described and analysed in the essay.
In court proceedings, the principle of jura novit curia applies. Although the principle and scope of the principle are controversial, it can be said to mean that the parties do not have to prove the content of the applicable law and that the court has an obligation to investigate the content thereof. The judge has a monopoly on the use of law in Swedish courts.
What impact the principle of jura novit curia has in arbitration proceedings in Sweden is debated. In the following essay, this topic is discussed, with a particular focus on the parties’ ability to enter into binding agreements on the use of law. There is support both in the legislative history and in doctrine in order for the parties to arbitration to have a greater power of disposition than parties in trial. It appears that the arbitrators should agree that the they may only use certain specially designated rules or regulations, or may not apply certain designated rules. If the arbitrators do not comply with the agreement, it is probable that a protest action against the arbitration can be successfully brought by the parties.
Regarding agreements that intend to bind the arbitrators in a particular interpretation of legal rules, it is more unclear. However, it can be stated that an arbitration cannot be subject for protest action because it is materially inaccurate, which may speak against the parties being able to bring a successful protest action against an arbitration in which the arbitrators did not follow the agreed interpretation.
One conclusion drawn in the essay is that for the parties' concerns, unlike what applies in trial, there can be advantages in writing their agreement in strict procedural terms, so as to mark that the instruction is not a matter of civil law, but part of the assignment description to the arbitrators. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8976845
- author
- Montan, Ludvig LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20191
- year
- 2019
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- processrätt, skiljemannarätt
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 8976845
- date added to LUP
- 2019-09-09 17:13:28
- date last changed
- 2019-09-09 17:13:28
@misc{8976845,
abstract = {{Arbitration is a form of dispute resolution that is used extensively by commercial actors both in Sweden and abroad. The procedure is similar to court proceedings. However, there are some crucial differences between arbitration and trial which are described and analysed in the essay.
In court proceedings, the principle of jura novit curia applies. Although the principle and scope of the principle are controversial, it can be said to mean that the parties do not have to prove the content of the applicable law and that the court has an obligation to investigate the content thereof. The judge has a monopoly on the use of law in Swedish courts.
What impact the principle of jura novit curia has in arbitration proceedings in Sweden is debated. In the following essay, this topic is discussed, with a particular focus on the parties’ ability to enter into binding agreements on the use of law. There is support both in the legislative history and in doctrine in order for the parties to arbitration to have a greater power of disposition than parties in trial. It appears that the arbitrators should agree that the they may only use certain specially designated rules or regulations, or may not apply certain designated rules. If the arbitrators do not comply with the agreement, it is probable that a protest action against the arbitration can be successfully brought by the parties.
Regarding agreements that intend to bind the arbitrators in a particular interpretation of legal rules, it is more unclear. However, it can be stated that an arbitration cannot be subject for protest action because it is materially inaccurate, which may speak against the parties being able to bring a successful protest action against an arbitration in which the arbitrators did not follow the agreed interpretation.
One conclusion drawn in the essay is that for the parties' concerns, unlike what applies in trial, there can be advantages in writing their agreement in strict procedural terms, so as to mark that the instruction is not a matter of civil law, but part of the assignment description to the arbitrators.}},
author = {{Montan, Ludvig}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Tillämplig materiell rätt i skiljeförfarande - En studie av partsautonomins gränser i skiljeförfarande och förhållandet till jura novit curia}},
year = {{2019}},
}