Advanced

Högsta domstolens prövning av konkurrensrättsliga skiljedomar - En analys av aktuell praxis

Linder, Martin LU (2019) LAGF03 20191
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract
The aim of this thesis is to analyse from a European perspective the position of the Swedish Supreme Court on the review of arbitral awards regarding issues of competition law.

Arbitration plays a crucial role in the field of international commerce largely due to its ability to expediently present to the parties a final, binding and internationally enforceable award. In the Eco Swiss judgement, however, the European Court of Justice implemented a European ”second look” doctrine when it held that competition law, as an integral part of the legislation of the European Union, is to be considered public policy in the respective member states and shall be seen as grounds for review and potential annulment of arbitral awards. As the scope of... (More)
The aim of this thesis is to analyse from a European perspective the position of the Swedish Supreme Court on the review of arbitral awards regarding issues of competition law.

Arbitration plays a crucial role in the field of international commerce largely due to its ability to expediently present to the parties a final, binding and internationally enforceable award. In the Eco Swiss judgement, however, the European Court of Justice implemented a European ”second look” doctrine when it held that competition law, as an integral part of the legislation of the European Union, is to be considered public policy in the respective member states and shall be seen as grounds for review and potential annulment of arbitral awards. As the scope of review and exact public policy nature of the legislation was not specified a divergent practice has developed in the Union as some courts take a minimalist approach while others perform more thorough reviews. Two cases recently decided by the Swedish Supreme Court provide an opportunity to analyse its position regarding the balance struck between respecting the finality of arbitral awards and the obligation to uphold community law.

It was found that while the review as a rule should rely on the arbitral tribunals findings on the evidence and be restricted to their legal reasoning the court may perform an official examination de novo especially if the question has not been considered by the arbitral tribunal. Clarification is desired as to when the court is obligated to request from the Court of Justice a preliminary ruling should there be uncertainty as to established law. With regards to questions of tort and economic liability arising from contractual disputes the issue of public policy does not seem to come into play. The reasoning of the court seems to align well with the Court of Justice case law and in a European context positions the court as more ”maximalistic” than previously assumed. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
Syftet med denna uppsats är att ur ett europeiskt perspektiv analysera Högsta domstolens position angående prövning av skiljedomar med konkurrensrättsliga frågeställningar.

Skiljeförfarandet spelar en nyckelroll inom internationellt näringsliv mycket genom sin förmåga att på ett skyndsamt sätt framställa en slutgiltig, bindande och internationellt verkställbar skiljedom. Genom sitt domslut i Eco Swiss införde dock EU-domstolen en europeisk ”second look”-doktrin när den beslutade att konkurrensrätten, såsom en grundläggande del av Europeiska Unionens lagstiftning, ska tillhöra respektive medlemsstats public policy och utgöra grund för prövning och eventuell ogiltighet av skiljedomar. Eftersom omfattningen av sådan prövning och... (More)
Syftet med denna uppsats är att ur ett europeiskt perspektiv analysera Högsta domstolens position angående prövning av skiljedomar med konkurrensrättsliga frågeställningar.

Skiljeförfarandet spelar en nyckelroll inom internationellt näringsliv mycket genom sin förmåga att på ett skyndsamt sätt framställa en slutgiltig, bindande och internationellt verkställbar skiljedom. Genom sitt domslut i Eco Swiss införde dock EU-domstolen en europeisk ”second look”-doktrin när den beslutade att konkurrensrätten, såsom en grundläggande del av Europeiska Unionens lagstiftning, ska tillhöra respektive medlemsstats public policy och utgöra grund för prövning och eventuell ogiltighet av skiljedomar. Eftersom omfattningen av sådan prövning och lagstiftningens status som public policy inte specificerades närmare har en varierande praxis utvecklats inom Unionen då vissa domstolar antar en minimalistisk inställning medan andra göra mer omfattande prövningar. Högsta domstolen har på senare tid avgjort två mål som ger möjlighet att analysera domstolens position ifråga om balansen mellan att respektera slutgiltigheten av en skiljedom och plikten att upprätthålla unionsrättslig lagstiftning.

Det befanns att även om prövningen som huvudregel ska förlita sig på skiljenämndens bevisvärdering och begränsas till det rättsliga resonemanget kan domstolen göra en de novo officialprövning särskilt om den konkurrensrättsliga frågan inte behandlats av skiljenämnden. Förtydligande efterfrågas angående när domstolen är skyldig att begära förhandsavgörande från EU-domstolen vid oklarhet om gällande rätt. Ifråga om skadestånd och talan om ekonomisk ersättning verkar frågan om public policy inte bli aktuell. Domstolens resonerande tycks väl i linje med EU-domstolens praxis och placerar i en europeisk kontext domstolen mer åt det ”maximalistiska” hållet än vad som tidigare antagits. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Linder, Martin LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20191
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
Konkurrensrätt, Internationell privaträtt, EU-rätt, Skiljeförfarande
language
Swedish
id
8976681
date added to LUP
2019-09-16 10:59:37
date last changed
2019-09-16 10:59:37
@misc{8976681,
  abstract     = {The aim of this thesis is to analyse from a European perspective the position of the Swedish Supreme Court on the review of arbitral awards regarding issues of competition law. 

Arbitration plays a crucial role in the field of international commerce largely due to its ability to expediently present to the parties a final, binding and internationally enforceable award. In the Eco Swiss judgement, however, the European Court of Justice implemented a European ”second look” doctrine when it held that competition law, as an integral part of the legislation of the European Union, is to be considered public policy in the respective member states and shall be seen as grounds for review and potential annulment of arbitral awards. As the scope of review and exact public policy nature of the legislation was not specified a divergent practice has developed in the Union as some courts take a minimalist approach while others perform more thorough reviews. Two cases recently decided by the Swedish Supreme Court provide an opportunity to analyse its position regarding the balance struck between respecting the finality of arbitral awards and the obligation to uphold community law. 

It was found that while the review as a rule should rely on the arbitral tribunals findings on the evidence and be restricted to their legal reasoning the court may perform an official examination de novo especially if the question has not been considered by the arbitral tribunal. Clarification is desired as to when the court is obligated to request from the Court of Justice a preliminary ruling should there be uncertainty as to established law. With regards to questions of tort and economic liability arising from contractual disputes the issue of public policy does not seem to come into play. The reasoning of the court seems to align well with the Court of Justice case law and in a European context positions the court as more ”maximalistic” than previously assumed.},
  author       = {Linder, Martin},
  keyword      = {Konkurrensrätt,Internationell privaträtt,EU-rätt,Skiljeförfarande},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Högsta domstolens prövning av konkurrensrättsliga skiljedomar - En analys av aktuell praxis},
  year         = {2019},
}