Advanced

Anknytningsdoktrinen i kölvattnet av NJA 2017 s. 226 - och vad som kom istället

Falk, Alma LU (2018) JURM02 20181
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Skiljeförfarandet utgör det enda alternativ till domstolsförfarande som också resulterar i en exigibel dom med rättskraft. Ett avtal om skiljeförfarande utgör ett hinder mot domstolsprövning om det åberopas inför domstol. Motsvarande prövningshinder gäller för skiljenämnd om en tvistefråga som anhängiggörs skiljenämnden faller utanför skiljeavtalets tillämpningsområde, eftersom skiljenämnden då inte är behörig att uppta frågan till prövning. Skiljeavtalets räckvidd får således avgörande betydelse för huruvida en viss tvistefråga mellan två parter skall prövas av skiljenämnd eller allmän domstol, och avgörs genom skiljenämnds eller domstols behörighetsprövning. En problematik som ofta uppkommer när det gäller frågan om skiljeavtalets... (More)
Skiljeförfarandet utgör det enda alternativ till domstolsförfarande som också resulterar i en exigibel dom med rättskraft. Ett avtal om skiljeförfarande utgör ett hinder mot domstolsprövning om det åberopas inför domstol. Motsvarande prövningshinder gäller för skiljenämnd om en tvistefråga som anhängiggörs skiljenämnden faller utanför skiljeavtalets tillämpningsområde, eftersom skiljenämnden då inte är behörig att uppta frågan till prövning. Skiljeavtalets räckvidd får således avgörande betydelse för huruvida en viss tvistefråga mellan två parter skall prövas av skiljenämnd eller allmän domstol, och avgörs genom skiljenämnds eller domstols behörighetsprövning. En problematik som ofta uppkommer när det gäller frågan om skiljeavtalets räckvidd är gränsdragningen mellan inomobligatoriska och utomobligatoriska tvistefrågor. En intressant aspekt i sammanhanget är i vilken mån rubriceringen av talan kan påverka denna bedömning. Vad gäller domstols och skiljenämnds behörighetsprövning har under lång tid den så kallade påståendedoktrinen ansetts gälla i svensk rätt. På senare tid har i praxis också utvecklats vad många kallar en ny doktrin, anknytningsdoktrinen. Debatt har sedan dess pågått kring hur doktrinerna förhåller sig till varandra och vilken av doktrinerna som är mest önskvärd att tillämpa på skiljeklausulers räckvidd, eftersom påståendedoktrinen medför en restriktiv tolkning medan anknytningsdoktrinen medför en extensiv tolkning. HD har under lång tid tillämpat doktrinerna om vart annat utan att adressera deras inbördes relation, men i NJA 2017 s. 226 har HD slutligen konstaterat att det är påståendedoktrinen som fortsatt ska råda i svensk rätt för att avgöra rättens behörighet och att anknytningsdoktrinen inte kan tillämpas ”annat än i vissa särskilda fall och under mycket speciella förhållanden” . Någon närmre specificering av vilka särskilda fall och speciella förhållanden som avses har inte gjorts.
I samma rättsfall har HD samtidigt uttalat att en talans rubricering som utom- eller inomobligatorisk inte alltid skall tillmätas avgörande betydelse, vid ”klara fall” ska domstolen genom en ”genomlysning” av talan ”fastställa talans verkliga innebörd”. På detta sätt ska part inte kunna undkomma skiljeförfarande enbart genom att ”maskera” sin talan som utomobligatorisk, om talans verkliga innebörd är den att talan hör samman med det rättsförhållande som omfattas av en skiljeklausul.
Syftet med denna uppsats har varit att utreda hur anknytningskriteriet i anknytningsdoktrinen och detta nya genomlysningskriterium förhåller sig till varandra. Utifrån tre perspektiv, förutsebarhet, rätten till domstolsprövning och förenligheten med precisionskravet i LSF, har en jämförande analys av kriterierna gjorts för att utreda hur de skiljer sig åt och om genomlysningskriteriet undanröjer den tillämpningsproblematik som anknytningskriteriet har kritiserats för att medföra.
Slutsatsen av analysen är att kriterierna inte nämnvärt skiljer sig åt, åtminstone inte sett till förutsebarhet och rätten till domstolsprövning. Möjligheten för den enskilde att på förhand kunna förstå och förutse konsekvenserna av tillämpningen av respektive kriterium är bristfällig, både för den individ som önskar få till stånd ett skiljeförfarande och för den individ som önskar säkerställa att endast vissa frågor omfattas av skiljeförfarande medan rätten till domstolsprövning i övriga hänseenden bibehålls. Genomlysningskriteriet skiljer sig möjligen något från anknytningskriteriet i förhållande till förenligheten med precisionskravet i LSF eftersom det vid tillämpningen av genomlysningskriteriet står domstolen fritt att tolka begreppet rättsförhållande i enlighet med precisionskravet i LSF. Allmänt kan dock sägas att de två bedömningskriterierna är luddigt beskrivna utan närmre definitioner och att de i det närmaste synes utgöra brasklappar för att rättstillämpningen i det enskilda fallet ska kunna göra en dynamisk prövning med rimlig utgång för alla parter.
Sammanfattningsvis kan konstateras att anknytningskriteriet och genomlysningskriteriet har fler likheter än skillnader och att genomlysningskriteriet ur åtminstone två av tre perspektiv inte eliminerar den tillämpningsproblematik som anknytningskriteriet har kritiserats för att medföra. (Less)
Abstract
Arbitration constitutes the only alternative to a judicial proceeding in court that also results in a legally binding judgement. An arbitration agreement also constitutes a procedural impediment if reference to it is made before the court. Corresponding procedural hindrance applies to an arbitration tribunal or to an arbitrator if the matter of dispute referred to arbitration lies outside the scope of the arbitration agreement, since the arbitration tribunal or arbitrator will not be qualified to review the matter. The scope of the arbitration agreement thus becomes decisive in determining whether a particular dispute between two parties is to be reviewed by arbitration or a judicial proceeding. A problem that often arises with regard to... (More)
Arbitration constitutes the only alternative to a judicial proceeding in court that also results in a legally binding judgement. An arbitration agreement also constitutes a procedural impediment if reference to it is made before the court. Corresponding procedural hindrance applies to an arbitration tribunal or to an arbitrator if the matter of dispute referred to arbitration lies outside the scope of the arbitration agreement, since the arbitration tribunal or arbitrator will not be qualified to review the matter. The scope of the arbitration agreement thus becomes decisive in determining whether a particular dispute between two parties is to be reviewed by arbitration or a judicial proceeding. A problem that often arises with regard to the scope of the arbitration agreement is the boundary between what is considered contractual matters of dispute and what is considered non-contractual matters. An interesting aspect in this context is the extent to which the classification of the claim may affect this assessment. The so-called doctrine of assertion has for a long time been considered valid in Swedish law as an assessment basis for determining jurisdiction to review certain matters of dispute. Recently, practice has developed what many call a new doctrine, the doctrine of connection. Debate among legal commentators has been going on since about how the doctrines relate to each other and which of the doctrines that are most desirable to apply when determining the scope of arbitration agreements; the doctrine of assertion, which implies a restrictive interpretation, or the doctrine of connection, which implies an extensive interpretation.
The Swedish Supreme Court has for a long time applied the two doctrines in parallel without addressing their mutual relationship, but in NJA 2017 p. 226, it finally found that the doctrine of assertion is to be the principal rule for determining jurisdiction. It also found that the doctrine of connection cannot be applied “except in certain special cases and under very special circumstances.” No further specification of the particular cases and special circumstances referred to in the judgement was made. In the same case, the Supreme Court also stated that the classification of a claim as either contractual or non-contractual is not always to be decisive. In “clear cases”, the court is to “review” the claim to “determine the true meaning of the claim” and identify it as either a contractual claim or a non-contractual claim. By doing this, a party should not be able to escape arbitration proceedings merely by “masking” its claim as non-contractual, if the true meaning of the claim is that it is linked to the legal relationship between the parties covered by an arbitration agreement and thus contractual.
The purpose of this essay has been to investigate how the connection criterion and the review criterion relate to each other. Based on three perspectives; predictability, the right to a judicial proceeding and compatibility with the precision requirement for legal relationships in LSF , a comparative analysis of the criteria has been made to find out how they differ and if the review criterion eliminates the application issues that the connection criterion has been criticized to entail.
In summary, the analysis shows that the criteria do not differ significantly, at least not in relation to predictability and the right to a judicial proceeding. The possibility for a party to anticipate the consequences of the application of respective criterion is unsatisfactory. The review criterion may be in slightly better accordance with the precision requirement in LSF, since the court when reviewing the true meaning of a claim is free to interpret the concept of ‘legal relation’ in accordance with the precision requirement in LSF. In general, however, it can be said that the two criteria are vaguely described without further definitions and seem to exist only as a way for the justice system to ensure a dynamic trial in the individual case with a reasonable outcome for all parties.
In conclusion, it can be seen that the review criterion and the connection criterion have more similarities than differences, and that the review criterion from at least two out of three perspectives does not eliminate the application issues that the connection criterion has been criticized to entail. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Falk, Alma LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
The doctrine of connection in the wake of NJA 2017 p. 226 - and what came instead
course
JURM02 20181
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
avtalsrätt, civilrätt, skiljeförfarande, skiljemannarätt, anknytningsdoktrinen, påståendedoktrinen, Private law, contract law, procedural law, arbitration, the doctrine of assertion, the doctrine of connection
language
Swedish
id
8941777
date added to LUP
2018-06-08 10:15:16
date last changed
2018-06-08 10:15:16
@misc{8941777,
  abstract     = {Arbitration constitutes the only alternative to a judicial proceeding in court that also results in a legally binding judgement. An arbitration agreement also constitutes a procedural impediment if reference to it is made before the court. Corresponding procedural hindrance applies to an arbitration tribunal or to an arbitrator if the matter of dispute referred to arbitration lies outside the scope of the arbitration agreement, since the arbitration tribunal or arbitrator will not be qualified to review the matter. The scope of the arbitration agreement thus becomes decisive in determining whether a particular dispute between two parties is to be reviewed by arbitration or a judicial proceeding. A problem that often arises with regard to the scope of the arbitration agreement is the boundary between what is considered contractual matters of dispute and what is considered non-contractual matters. An interesting aspect in this context is the extent to which the classification of the claim may affect this assessment. The so-called doctrine of assertion has for a long time been considered valid in Swedish law as an assessment basis for determining jurisdiction to review certain matters of dispute. Recently, practice has developed what many call a new doctrine, the doctrine of connection. Debate among legal commentators has been going on since about how the doctrines relate to each other and which of the doctrines that are most desirable to apply when determining the scope of arbitration agreements; the doctrine of assertion, which implies a restrictive interpretation, or the doctrine of connection, which implies an extensive interpretation. 
The Swedish Supreme Court has for a long time applied the two doctrines in parallel without addressing their mutual relationship, but in NJA 2017 p. 226, it finally found that the doctrine of assertion is to be the principal rule for determining jurisdiction. It also found that the doctrine of connection cannot be applied “except in certain special cases and under very special circumstances.” No further specification of the particular cases and special circumstances referred to in the judgement was made. In the same case, the Supreme Court also stated that the classification of a claim as either contractual or non-contractual is not always to be decisive. In “clear cases”, the court is to “review” the claim to “determine the true meaning of the claim” and identify it as either a contractual claim or a non-contractual claim. By doing this, a party should not be able to escape arbitration proceedings merely by “masking” its claim as non-contractual, if the true meaning of the claim is that it is linked to the legal relationship between the parties covered by an arbitration agreement and thus contractual. 
The purpose of this essay has been to investigate how the connection criterion and the review criterion relate to each other. Based on three perspectives; predictability, the right to a judicial proceeding and compatibility with the precision requirement for legal relationships in LSF , a comparative analysis of the criteria has been made to find out how they differ and if the review criterion eliminates the application issues that the connection criterion has been criticized to entail.
In summary, the analysis shows that the criteria do not differ significantly, at least not in relation to predictability and the right to a judicial proceeding. The possibility for a party to anticipate the consequences of the application of respective criterion is unsatisfactory. The review criterion may be in slightly better accordance with the precision requirement in LSF, since the court when reviewing the true meaning of a claim is free to interpret the concept of ‘legal relation’ in accordance with the precision requirement in LSF. In general, however, it can be said that the two criteria are vaguely described without further definitions and seem to exist only as a way for the justice system to ensure a dynamic trial in the individual case with a reasonable outcome for all parties. 
In conclusion, it can be seen that the review criterion and the connection criterion have more similarities than differences, and that the review criterion from at least two out of three perspectives does not eliminate the application issues that the connection criterion has been criticized to entail.},
  author       = {Falk, Alma},
  keyword      = {avtalsrätt,civilrätt,skiljeförfarande,skiljemannarätt,anknytningsdoktrinen,påståendedoktrinen,Private law,contract law,procedural law,arbitration,the doctrine of assertion,the doctrine of connection},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Anknytningsdoktrinen i kölvattnet av NJA 2017 s. 226 - och vad som kom istället},
  year         = {2018},
}