Advanced

Avtal om bevisföringsförbud i svensk skiljemannarätt - Speciellt om integrationsklausuler och sekretessavtal vid Dispute Boards avgöranden

Hellström, Matilda LU (2016) JURM02 20162
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Avtalsfrihet är en viktig princip i ett skiljeförfarande. Parterna kan genom avtal påverka handläggningen i skiljenämnden och konstruera regler som binder skiljemännen i bedömningen av deras tvist. Det finns dock begränsningar för avtalsfriheten, då förfarandet måste uppnå vissa rättssäkerhetsgarantier och parterna måste ha möjlighet att föra sin talan. Syftet med denna uppsats är att undersöka om parterna kan avtala om bevisföringsförbud innebärande att skiljemännen har en skyldighet att avvisa bevisning som i strid med avtalet införs i processen.
En skiljenämnd kan ställas inför avtal om bevisföringsförbud på olika sätt, men i denna uppsats tas två situationer upp; den ena situationen är att skiljenämnden måste ta ställning till... (More)
Avtalsfrihet är en viktig princip i ett skiljeförfarande. Parterna kan genom avtal påverka handläggningen i skiljenämnden och konstruera regler som binder skiljemännen i bedömningen av deras tvist. Det finns dock begränsningar för avtalsfriheten, då förfarandet måste uppnå vissa rättssäkerhetsgarantier och parterna måste ha möjlighet att föra sin talan. Syftet med denna uppsats är att undersöka om parterna kan avtala om bevisföringsförbud innebärande att skiljemännen har en skyldighet att avvisa bevisning som i strid med avtalet införs i processen.
En skiljenämnd kan ställas inför avtal om bevisföringsförbud på olika sätt, men i denna uppsats tas två situationer upp; den ena situationen är att skiljenämnden måste ta ställning till innebörden av en integrationsklausul och den andra är att nämnden – som ett andra steg i en avtalad tvistlösningsklausul – måste ta ställning till innebörden i en sekretessklausul som går ut på att en dispute boards avgörande i det första tvistlösningssteget inte får användas som bevis i skiljeförfarandet (sekretessklausul). Fokus ligger på om en skiljenämnd är skyldig att avvisa bevisning i enlighet med parternas avtal, eller om det finns andra lösningar tillgängliga för skiljenämnden.
Skiljeförfarandet styrs av lag (1999:116) om skiljeförfarande kompletterat av RB:s regler. Vidare präglar partsautonomin processen och parterna kan avtala om förfarandet i den mån överenskommelserna inte strider mot tvingande regler. Avtalsfriheten begränsas av att parterna har rätt till en rättvis rättegång enligt artikel 6 EKMR, och kan inte avstå från alla rättssäkerhetsgarantier en rättvis rättegång innebär. Ett bevisföringsförbud innebär ett avstående från rätten att föra bevisning, och det är därför möjligt att EKMR hindrar att parterna till fulla avstår från denna rättighet.
Min slutsats är att det är väldigt ingripande att avtala om ett bevisföringsförbud i skiljeförfarande som innebär att skiljemännen ska avvisa bevisning. Hur ingripande det är skiljer sig dock från situation till situation, eftersom det är beroende på parternas övriga möjligheter att föra sin talan. Jag menar att det är tillåtet att avtala om bevisning, inklusive avvisning av bevisning, men att denna rättighet inte är obegränsad. Om parterna på grund av avtalet inte tillåts föra någon bevisning över huvud taget, bör artikel 6 EKMR medföra att avtalet är ogiltigt processuellt. Det är upp till skiljemännen att tolka avtalsvillkoret och avgöra hur avvisning av bevisning påverkar parternas rättssäkerhet. Om skiljemännen anser det för ingripande att avvisa bevisning i det enskilda fallet står andra alternativ till buds. Skiljemännen kan tillmäta bevisning ett lågt bevisvärde, alternativt låta bevisningen påverka avtalets tolkning.
Det råder enligt min mening större tveksamt kring integrationsklausulers processuella effekter än sekretessklausuler i förhållande till dispute boards effekter. Integrationsklausuler har potentialen att i stor mån inskränka parternas bevisföringsmöjligheter, eftersom de avskär all bevisning om avtalspreliminärer. Sekretessklausuler däremot innebär enbart att bevisning inte får föras om vad som förekommit i ett dispute board-förfarande. All bevisning som förts i dispute boarden får dock föras in i skiljeförfarandet och det blir således en ny prövning. Dessa klausuler visar därför på att avtalade bevisföringsförbud får bedömas i varje enskilt fall, eftersom de kan ha olika stor inverkan på processen i skiljeförfarande. (Less)
Abstract
Freedom of contract is an important principle in arbitration. The parties may by agreement affect the arbitration proceedings and construct procedural rules that bind the arbitrators in the assessment of their dispute. However, there are restrictions on the freedom of contract, since the procedure must attain certain procedural safeguards and the parties must have the opportunity to present their case. The purpose of this paper is to examine whether the parties can agree on evidence prohibitions, meaning that the parties’ want the arbitrators to dismiss evidence. The question is if the arbitrators are obliged to dismiss evidence on the basis of the parties’ agreement.
An arbitral tribunal may come across different types of agreements... (More)
Freedom of contract is an important principle in arbitration. The parties may by agreement affect the arbitration proceedings and construct procedural rules that bind the arbitrators in the assessment of their dispute. However, there are restrictions on the freedom of contract, since the procedure must attain certain procedural safeguards and the parties must have the opportunity to present their case. The purpose of this paper is to examine whether the parties can agree on evidence prohibitions, meaning that the parties’ want the arbitrators to dismiss evidence. The question is if the arbitrators are obliged to dismiss evidence on the basis of the parties’ agreement.
An arbitral tribunal may come across different types of agreements that contain evidence prohibitions, but in this paper, two situations are described. Firstly, that the tribunal must consider the implications of a merger clause. Secondly, that the arbitrators - as a second step in a contractual dispute resolution clause - have to consider the meaning of a confidentiality clause of the effect that a dispute board’s decision must not be used as evidence in arbitration (confidentiality agreement). The focus is on whether an arbitral tribunal is obliged to dismiss evidence in accordance with the parties' agreement, or if there are other solutions available to the tribunal.
The arbitration proceedings are governed by the Arbitration Act (1999:116), supplemented by the rules in The Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure (1942:740). Furthermore, the party autonomy characterizes the process and the parties may agree on procedural rules as long as the agreement does not contradict mandatory rules. Contractual freedom is limited by the parties' right to a fair trial in accordance with Article 6 of the ECHR, and they cannot waive all the guarantees a fair trial consists of. An evidence prohibition implies a waiver of the right to produce evidence, and it is therefore possible that the ECHR prevents the parties to fully waive this right.
My conclusion is that it is a severe measure to agree on an evidence prohibition in the arbitration procedure, that has the meaning that the arbitrators have to dismiss evidence. How severe it is, differs from situation to situation, because it is dependent on the parties' other possibilities to present their case. I mean that it is permissible to enter into evidence agreements, including dismissal of evidence, but this right is not unlimited. If the parties due to the agreement are not allowed to bring any evidence whatsoever, Article 6 ECHR should mean that the agreement is void. It is up to the arbitrators to interpret the term and determine how the exclusion of evidence affects the parties' legal certainty. If the arbitral tribunal considers it to be too much of an interference to dismiss evidence in the individual case, there are other options available. Arbitrators can give evidence a low value, alternatively let the evidence affect the interpretation of the agreement.
In my opinion, there are more doubts concerned with merger clauses’ effects than the effects of confidentiality clauses in relation to Dispute Boards. Merger clauses have the potential to restrict the parties' possibilities of producing evidence to a large extent, since it excludes all evidence on pre-contractual obligations. Confidentiality clauses, however, only means that evidence on what occurred in a Dispute Board procedure may not be introduced into the process. All evidence brought before the Dispute Board may be brought into the arbitration process and it thus becomes a new trial before the arbitral tribunal. These clauses therefore show that the agreed evidence prohibition must be assessed in each case, as they may have different impacts on the process before the arbitral tribunal. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Hellström, Matilda LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Agreements on Exclusion of Evidence in Swedish Arbitration Law
course
JURM02 20162
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Avtalsrätt, Processrätt, Civil procedure, Skiljeförfarande, Integrationsklausul, Dispute Boards, Bevisföring, Processuella avtal
language
Swedish
id
8897778
date added to LUP
2017-01-21 13:36:19
date last changed
2017-01-21 13:36:19
@misc{8897778,
  abstract     = {Freedom of contract is an important principle in arbitration. The parties may by agreement affect the arbitration proceedings and construct procedural rules that bind the arbitrators in the assessment of their dispute. However, there are restrictions on the freedom of contract, since the procedure must attain certain procedural safeguards and the parties must have the opportunity to present their case. The purpose of this paper is to examine whether the parties can agree on evidence prohibitions, meaning that the parties’ want the arbitrators to dismiss evidence. The question is if the arbitrators are obliged to dismiss evidence on the basis of the parties’ agreement. 
	An arbitral tribunal may come across different types of agreements that contain evidence prohibitions, but in this paper, two situations are described. Firstly, that the tribunal must consider the implications of a merger clause. Secondly, that the arbitrators - as a second step in a contractual dispute resolution clause - have to consider the meaning of a confidentiality clause of the effect that a dispute board’s decision must not be used as evidence in arbitration (confidentiality agreement). The focus is on whether an arbitral tribunal is obliged to dismiss evidence in accordance with the parties' agreement, or if there are other solutions available to the tribunal.
	The arbitration proceedings are governed by the Arbitration Act (1999:116), supplemented by the rules in The Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure (1942:740). Furthermore, the party autonomy characterizes the process and the parties may agree on procedural rules as long as the agreement does not contradict mandatory rules. Contractual freedom is limited by the parties' right to a fair trial in accordance with Article 6 of the ECHR, and they cannot waive all the guarantees a fair trial consists of. An evidence prohibition implies a waiver of the right to produce evidence, and it is therefore possible that the ECHR prevents the parties to fully waive this right.
	My conclusion is that it is a severe measure to agree on an evidence prohibition in the arbitration procedure, that has the meaning that the arbitrators have to dismiss evidence. How severe it is, differs from situation to situation, because it is dependent on the parties' other possibilities to present their case. I mean that it is permissible to enter into evidence agreements, including dismissal of evidence, but this right is not unlimited. If the parties due to the agreement are not allowed to bring any evidence whatsoever, Article 6 ECHR should mean that the agreement is void. It is up to the arbitrators to interpret the term and determine how the exclusion of evidence affects the parties' legal certainty. If the arbitral tribunal considers it to be too much of an interference to dismiss evidence in the individual case, there are other options available. Arbitrators can give evidence a low value, alternatively let the evidence affect the interpretation of the agreement.
	In my opinion, there are more doubts concerned with merger clauses’ effects than the effects of confidentiality clauses in relation to Dispute Boards. Merger clauses have the potential to restrict the parties' possibilities of producing evidence to a large extent, since it excludes all evidence on pre-contractual obligations. Confidentiality clauses, however, only means that evidence on what occurred in a Dispute Board procedure may not be introduced into the process. All evidence brought before the Dispute Board may be brought into the arbitration process and it thus becomes a new trial before the arbitral tribunal. These clauses therefore show that the agreed evidence prohibition must be assessed in each case, as they may have different impacts on the process before the arbitral tribunal.},
  author       = {Hellström, Matilda},
  keyword      = {Avtalsrätt,Processrätt,Civil procedure,Skiljeförfarande,Integrationsklausul,Dispute Boards,Bevisföring,Processuella avtal},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Avtal om bevisföringsförbud i svensk skiljemannarätt - Speciellt om integrationsklausuler och sekretessavtal vid Dispute Boards avgöranden},
  year         = {2016},
}