Advanced

Skiljeklausulers omfattning i svensk skiljerätt

Toft, Carolina LU (2012) JURM02 20112
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Grunden till ett skiljeförfarande är en överenskommelse mellan parterna om att hänskjuta tvister till skiljedomstol. Att parterna väljer detta kan bero på olika anledningar. De anledningar som brukar lyftas fram är att ett skiljeförfarande är snabbt, flexibelt, effektivt, neutralt, privat etc. Trots att parterna har varit överens om att hänskjuta tvister till skiljedomstol uppstår det inte sällan tvist om just detta när ett förfarande inleds. Tvister kring domstolens behörighet kan exempelvis uppstå på grund av skiljeavtalets omfattning, att avtalet har upphört att gälla, aldrig har ingåtts eller att avtalet är ogiltigt. Dessa tvister måste lösas för att processen ska kunna fortlöpa. Till hjälp har domstolarna vissa principer och metoder... (More)
Grunden till ett skiljeförfarande är en överenskommelse mellan parterna om att hänskjuta tvister till skiljedomstol. Att parterna väljer detta kan bero på olika anledningar. De anledningar som brukar lyftas fram är att ett skiljeförfarande är snabbt, flexibelt, effektivt, neutralt, privat etc. Trots att parterna har varit överens om att hänskjuta tvister till skiljedomstol uppstår det inte sällan tvist om just detta när ett förfarande inleds. Tvister kring domstolens behörighet kan exempelvis uppstå på grund av skiljeavtalets omfattning, att avtalet har upphört att gälla, aldrig har ingåtts eller att avtalet är ogiltigt. Dessa tvister måste lösas för att processen ska kunna fortlöpa. Till hjälp har domstolarna vissa principer och metoder och det är dessa som denna uppsats ska behandla.

I svensk rätt regleras skiljeförfarande i Lag (1999:116) om skiljeförfarande, LSF. Enligt 1§ LSF krävs det att parterna har ingått ett avtal om att hänskjuta eventuella tvister till skiljeförfarande. Därmed måste det först avgöras huruvida ett giltigt avtal har ingåtts mellan parterna. Vid denna bedömning ska domstolarna ta i beaktande om avtalet av någon anledning därefter blivit verkningslöst. Därefter måste domstolen bestämma omfattningen av avtalet. I förarbetena till LSF stadgas att skiljeavtal ska vara föremål för sedvanlig avtalstolkning. Detta är därmed en utgångspunkt för domstolarna när de gör sin bedömning. Högsta domstolen har fastställt genom NJA 2007 s. 745 samt NJA 2008 s. 120 att utöver innehållet i avtalet ska samtliga tvister som har anknytning till avtalsförhållandet omfattas av skiljeklausulen. Denna princip kallas för anknytningsdoktrinen. Tidigare i svensk rätt har det förespråkats en restriktiv tolkning av skiljeklausuler, men ovan nämnda rättsfall kan istället ge ett uttryck för motsatsen.

Till hjälp för domstolarnas bedömning av behörigheten finns det principer som fastställer skiljeklausulens självständighet i förhållande till huvudavtalet. Den första är påståendedoktrinen. Denna innebär att så länge ett anspråk grundats på rättsfakta som omfattas av en skiljeklausul föreligger bundenhet, vilket resulterar i att skiljedomstolen inte ska ta ställning till visst rättsfakta när de avgör sin behörighet. Istället ska de utgå från att detta rättsfakta föreligger. Detta gäller inte när det är uppenbart att så inte är fallet. Efter att doktrinen har haft viss omdiskuterad roll i svensk rätt fastslog Högsta domstolen i NJA 2008 s. 406 att doktrinen utgjorde en del av svensk rätt.

Separationsprincipen är en annan princip som fastställer skiljeklausulens självständighet. Denna innebär att en skiljeklausul alltid ska ses som ett separat avtal vid bedömningen av skiljeklausulens giltighet. Principen är idag reglerad i 3§ LSF och innebär att då en part påstår att en skiljedomstol saknar behörighet att avgöra tvisten eftersom huvudavtalet är ogiltigt, har hävts eller aldrig har ingåtts kan skiljedomstolen fortfarande avgöra behörigheten med stöd av skiljeklausulen.
Den sista principen som belyser skiljeavtalets självständighet är principen om competence-competence. Denna innebär att skiljedomstolen är behörig att själv avgöra sin behörighet. Principen är idag reglerad i 2§ LSF. Högsta domstolen har understrukit principens betydelse i två rättsfall. I NJA 2003 s. 379 samt 2009 N 9 vidhöll Högsta domstolen att skiljedomstolar är mest lämpade att själva avgöra sin behörighet. (Less)
Abstract
The foundation of arbitration is an agreement between the parties to arbitrate. There are various reasons why parties choose to use arbitration, but the most frequently cited reason is that arbitration is considered to be fast, flexible, efficient, neutral and private. Even though the parties have come to an agreement to use arbitration for their contractual relationship, at the beginning of an arbitration procedure, disputes about the use of arbitration frequently arise. These disputes typically center around the court of arbitration’s jurisdiction on the merits of the scope of the contract, the fact that the contract has ceased to exist or the invalidity of the contract. These disputes must be resolved before the procedure can continue.... (More)
The foundation of arbitration is an agreement between the parties to arbitrate. There are various reasons why parties choose to use arbitration, but the most frequently cited reason is that arbitration is considered to be fast, flexible, efficient, neutral and private. Even though the parties have come to an agreement to use arbitration for their contractual relationship, at the beginning of an arbitration procedure, disputes about the use of arbitration frequently arise. These disputes typically center around the court of arbitration’s jurisdiction on the merits of the scope of the contract, the fact that the contract has ceased to exist or the invalidity of the contract. These disputes must be resolved before the procedure can continue. Several principles are used to assist the court of arbitration in making the decision to continue with arbitration. This thesis illuminates these principles.

In Sweden, arbitration procedure is governed by the Swedish Arbitration Act Lag (1999:116) om skiljeförfarande, SAA. According to §1 SAA, the parties must have entered into a contract of arbitration to be able to use this mechanism of dispute settlement. Therefore, the courts must determine whether a valid contract exists between the parties. If the court finds that the parties have entered into a valid contract, it must decide if the contract has thereafter become inoperable for any reason. If the contract is still valid, the court must determine the scope of the contract. The preparatory work of the SAA makes it clear that arbitration agreements shall be interpreted using the regular principles of contract interpretation. Therefore, this is the starting point for the courts in their decision-making process. In addition, the Supreme Court has held (NJA 2007 s. 745 and NJA 2008 s. 120) that in addition to the subject matter of the contract, all disputes that have a direct link to the contract shall also fall under the scope of the arbitration agreement. Early Swedish law recommended a restricted interpretation of arbitration agreements, but the cited case goes in the opposite direction.

To assist in the determination of the jurisdiction there are principles that establish the autonomous nature of arbitration agreements in relation to the main contract. The first is the “doctrine of assertion”. The doctrine states that as long as a claim is founded on an arbitration agreement the parties are bound by that agreement. The effect of this is that a court of arbitration shall not take a position on particular legal facts when they are determining their competence. Instead, the court of arbitration shall presuppose that certain legal facts exist, except when it is obvious that there is not any arbitration agreement between the parties. The doctrine has had a disputed role in the Swedish legal system, but in NJA 2008 s. 406 the Supreme Court stated that the doctrine is part of Swedish law.

The “doctrine of separability” also falls under the arbitration agreement’s autonomy. This doctrine is today to be found in the §3 SAA and states that an arbitration agreement shall always be considered as a separate contract when determining its validity. When one party claims that a court of arbitration lacks competence to solve the dispute on the merits of an invalid main contract, the contract has ceased to exist or the parties have never entered into a contract, the court of arbitration can still determine the competence on the merits of the arbitration agreement.

The last doctrine which illustrates the arbitration agreement’s autonomy is the “doctrine of competence-competence”. The doctrine states that the courts of arbitration are competent to determine their own jurisdiction. This doctrine is today to be found in §2 SAA. The Supreme Court has stressed the doctrine’s value in NJA 2003 s. 379 and in NJA 2009 N 9. In both of these cases, the Supreme Court stated that the courts of arbitration are the most qualified to determine their own competence. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Toft, Carolina LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
The scope of the arbitration clause in Swedish arbitration law
course
JURM02 20112
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Avtalsrätt, skiljerätt, Skiljeklausul, Copetence-Copetence, Separationsprincipen, anknytningsdoktrinen, påståendedoktrinen
language
Swedish
id
2293929
date added to LUP
2012-02-15 09:12:33
date last changed
2012-02-15 09:12:33
@misc{2293929,
  abstract     = {The foundation of arbitration is an agreement between the parties to arbitrate. There are various reasons why parties choose to use arbitration, but the most frequently cited reason is that arbitration is considered to be fast, flexible, efficient, neutral and private. Even though the parties have come to an agreement to use arbitration for their contractual relationship, at the beginning of an arbitration procedure, disputes about the use of arbitration frequently arise. These disputes typically center around the court of arbitration’s jurisdiction on the merits of the scope of the contract, the fact that the contract has ceased to exist or the invalidity of the contract. These disputes must be resolved before the procedure can continue. Several principles are used to assist the court of arbitration in making the decision to continue with arbitration. This thesis illuminates these principles.  

In Sweden, arbitration procedure is governed by the Swedish Arbitration Act Lag (1999:116) om skiljeförfarande, SAA. According to §1 SAA, the parties must have entered into a contract of arbitration to be able to use this mechanism of dispute settlement. Therefore, the courts must determine whether a valid contract exists between the parties. If the court finds that the parties have entered into a valid contract, it must decide if the contract has thereafter become inoperable for any reason. If the contract is still valid, the court must determine the scope of the contract. The preparatory work of the SAA makes it clear that arbitration agreements shall be interpreted using the regular principles of contract interpretation. Therefore, this is the starting point for the courts in their decision-making process.  In addition, the Supreme Court has held (NJA 2007 s. 745 and NJA 2008 s. 120) that in addition to the subject matter of the contract, all disputes that have a direct link to the contract shall also fall under the scope of the arbitration agreement. Early Swedish law recommended a restricted interpretation of arbitration agreements, but the cited case goes in the opposite direction.

To assist in the determination of the jurisdiction there are principles that establish the autonomous nature of arbitration agreements in relation to the main contract. The first is the “doctrine of assertion”. The doctrine states that as long as a claim is founded on an arbitration agreement the parties are bound by that agreement. The effect of this is that a court of arbitration shall not take a position on particular legal facts when they are determining their competence. Instead, the court of arbitration shall presuppose that certain legal facts exist, except when it is obvious that there is not any arbitration agreement between the parties. The doctrine has had a disputed role in the Swedish legal system, but in NJA 2008 s. 406 the Supreme Court stated that the doctrine is part of Swedish law.     

The “doctrine of separability” also falls under the arbitration agreement’s autonomy. This doctrine is today to be found in the §3 SAA and states that an arbitration agreement shall always be considered as a separate contract when determining its validity. When one party claims that a court of arbitration lacks competence to solve the dispute on the merits of an invalid main contract, the contract has ceased to exist or the parties have never entered into a contract, the court of arbitration can still determine the competence on the merits of the arbitration agreement. 

The last doctrine which illustrates the arbitration agreement’s autonomy is the “doctrine of competence-competence”. The doctrine states that the courts of arbitration are competent to determine their own jurisdiction. This doctrine is today to be found in §2 SAA. The Supreme Court has stressed the doctrine’s value in NJA 2003 s. 379 and in NJA 2009 N 9. In both of these cases, the Supreme Court stated that the courts of arbitration are the most qualified to determine their own competence.},
  author       = {Toft, Carolina},
  keyword      = {Avtalsrätt,skiljerätt,Skiljeklausul,Copetence-Copetence,Separationsprincipen,anknytningsdoktrinen,påståendedoktrinen},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Skiljeklausulers omfattning i svensk skiljerätt},
  year         = {2012},
}