Advanced

Giltigheten av process- och bevisöverenskommelser i skiljeförfarande

Nilsson, Johan LU (2020) JURM02 20201
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract
In recent years, arbitration as a form of dispute resolution has become increasingly common between commercial parties. Although the procedure is similar to a civil court process, there are some significant differences between these dispute resolution forms. One such significant difference is the principle of party autonomy, which implies that parties can enter into agreements on how the dispute settlement process should proceed. Such agreements can be expressed in several ways. However, it is not uncommon that parties in one way or another limit the principle of freedom to present one´s case or the principle of the right to produce evidence. At the same time, the arbitration process is based on procedural guarantees that aim to assure the... (More)
In recent years, arbitration as a form of dispute resolution has become increasingly common between commercial parties. Although the procedure is similar to a civil court process, there are some significant differences between these dispute resolution forms. One such significant difference is the principle of party autonomy, which implies that parties can enter into agreements on how the dispute settlement process should proceed. Such agreements can be expressed in several ways. However, it is not uncommon that parties in one way or another limit the principle of freedom to present one´s case or the principle of the right to produce evidence. At the same time, the arbitration process is based on procedural guarantees that aim to assure the parties a fair trail. When parties choose to enter into such agreements the aforementioned principles will be partially waived, which consequently will weaken the procedural guarantees.

The purpose of the present thesis is to determine to what extent parties can agree in advance or in an ongoing arbitration on matters that partially waive the principle of freedom to present one´s case or the principle of the right to produce evidence. The result of this study shows that parties, through the principle of party autonomy, as a main rule, have the opportunity to agree on things that partially waive the aforementioned principles. However, the parties' ability to agree on such agreements is limited by the mandatory procedural rule contained in § 24, first paragraph, first sentence, LSF, that indicate that each party shall be given the full opportunity of presenting their case and Article 6 (1) ECHR that indicate the right to a fair trial. The parties' agreement must also not contravene the principle of equal treatment.

The results of this study also show that the validity of such agreements depends primarily on three circumstances: how restrictive the restriction are, the time at which the agreement was concluded, and how the restriction affects the party's opportunity of presenting their case in the individual case. The nature and extent of the dispute should be of special significance in this assessment. After an overall assessment, a party must be deemed to have had access to a fair trial in accordance with Article 6 (1) ECHR and a party must also have been given a full opportunity of presenting his case in accordance with § 24, first paragraph, first sentence, LSF. In addition, the results of this study show that even less restrictive restrictions in the individual case may be in conflict with the aforementioned regulations. The content of an agreement which constitutes a limitation of the rights in accordance with section 24, first paragraph, first sentence LSF or Article 6 (1) EKMR shall be submitted by the arbitration panel without regard. However, the arbitration panel must, in accordance with the principle of party autonomy, comply with contractual content that does not constitute such restriction. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
Skiljeförfarande som tvistelösningsform har på senare år blivit allt vanligare mellan kommersiella parter. Även om förfarandet liknar en process i allmän domstol finns det vissa väsentliga skillnader mellan dessa tvistelösningsformer. En sådan väsentlig skillnad är principen om partsautonomi vilken innebär att parter kan träffa avtal om hur handläggningen av tvisten skall tillgå. Sådana avtal kan ta sig uttryck på flera olika sätt. Emellertid är det inte ovanligt att parter väljer att på ett eller annat sätt begränsa den fria process- eller bevisföringen. Samtidigt bygger skiljeförfarandet på grundläggande processuella förfarandeprinciper som har till syfte att tillförsäkra parter ett rättssäkert förfarande. När parter väljer att ingå... (More)
Skiljeförfarande som tvistelösningsform har på senare år blivit allt vanligare mellan kommersiella parter. Även om förfarandet liknar en process i allmän domstol finns det vissa väsentliga skillnader mellan dessa tvistelösningsformer. En sådan väsentlig skillnad är principen om partsautonomi vilken innebär att parter kan träffa avtal om hur handläggningen av tvisten skall tillgå. Sådana avtal kan ta sig uttryck på flera olika sätt. Emellertid är det inte ovanligt att parter väljer att på ett eller annat sätt begränsa den fria process- eller bevisföringen. Samtidigt bygger skiljeförfarandet på grundläggande processuella förfarandeprinciper som har till syfte att tillförsäkra parter ett rättssäkert förfarande. När parter väljer att ingå dylika överenskommelser åsidosätts annars gällande process- och bevisregler vilket medför att rättssäkerheten i förfarandet partiellt försvagas.

Syftet med förevarande uppsats är att utreda i vilken mån parter på förhand eller i ett pågående skiljeförfarande får komma överens om sådant som partiellt begränsar parternas fria process- eller bevisföring. Resultatet av denna studie visar att parter genom partsautonomins princip har möjlighet att som utgångspunkt komma överens om sådant som begränsar den fri process- eller bevisföringen. Emellertid begränsas parternas möjlighet att avtala om dylika överenskommelser, dels av den tvingande förfaranderegeln som återfinns i 24 § första stycket första meningen LSF om parts rätt att i all behövlig omfattning utföra sin talan, dels av artikel 6 (1) EKMR om rätten till en rättvis rättegång. Parternas överenskommelse får heller inte stå i strid med likabehandlingsprincipen.

Resultatet av denna studie visar även att giltigheten av överenskommelser som begränsar den fria process- eller bevisföringen framför allt är beroende av tre omständigheter; hur ingripande parters begränsning är, vid vilken tidpunkt överenskommelsen ingicks samt hur begränsningen påverkar parts möjlighet att utföra sin talan i det enskilda fallet. I denna bedömning torde tvistens art och omfattning vara av särskild betydelse. Efter en helhetsbedömning måste en part anses ha fått tillgång till en rättvis rättegång i enlighet med artikel 6 (1) EKMR och en part måste också ha beretts tillfälle att i all behövlig omfattning utföra sin talan i enlighet med 24 § första stycket första meningen LSF. Därutöver visar resultatet av denna studie att även mindre ingripande begränsningar i det enskilda fallet kan stå i strid med tidigare nämnda bestämmelser. Avtalsinnehåll som innebär en begränsning av rättigheterna enligt 24 § första stycket första meningen LSF eller artikel 6 (1) EKMR skall av skiljenämnden lämnas utan avseende. Avtalsinnehåll som inte innebär en sådan begränsning skall emellertid, i enlighet med principen om partsautonomi, efterlevas av skiljenämnden. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Nilsson, Johan LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
The validity of process- and evidence agreements in arbitration
course
JURM02 20201
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
civilrätt, processrätt, civilprocessrätt, skiljeförfarande
language
Swedish
id
9009967
date added to LUP
2020-06-13 12:44:46
date last changed
2020-06-13 12:44:46
@misc{9009967,
  abstract     = {In recent years, arbitration as a form of dispute resolution has become increasingly common between commercial parties. Although the procedure is similar to a civil court process, there are some significant differences between these dispute resolution forms. One such significant difference is the principle of party autonomy, which implies that parties can enter into agreements on how the dispute settlement process should proceed. Such agreements can be expressed in several ways. However, it is not uncommon that parties in one way or another limit the principle of freedom to present one´s case or the principle of the right to produce evidence. At the same time, the arbitration process is based on procedural guarantees that aim to assure the parties a fair trail. When parties choose to enter into such agreements the aforementioned principles will be partially waived, which consequently will weaken the procedural guarantees. 

The purpose of the present thesis is to determine to what extent parties can agree in advance or in an ongoing arbitration on matters that partially waive the principle of freedom to present one´s case or the principle of the right to produce evidence. The result of this study shows that parties, through the principle of party autonomy, as a main rule, have the opportunity to agree on things that partially waive the aforementioned principles. However, the parties' ability to agree on such agreements is limited by the mandatory procedural rule contained in § 24, first paragraph, first sentence, LSF, that indicate that each party shall be given the full opportunity of presenting their case and Article 6 (1) ECHR that indicate the right to a fair trial. The parties' agreement must also not contravene the principle of equal treatment.

The results of this study also show that the validity of such agreements depends primarily on three circumstances: how restrictive the restriction are, the time at which the agreement was concluded, and how the restriction affects the party's opportunity of presenting their case in the individual case. The nature and extent of the dispute should be of special significance in this assessment. After an overall assessment, a party must be deemed to have had access to a fair trial in accordance with Article 6 (1) ECHR and a party must also have been given a full opportunity of presenting his case in accordance with § 24, first paragraph, first sentence, LSF. In addition, the results of this study show that even less restrictive restrictions in the individual case may be in conflict with the aforementioned regulations. The content of an agreement which constitutes a limitation of the rights in accordance with section 24, first paragraph, first sentence LSF or Article 6 (1) EKMR shall be submitted by the arbitration panel without regard. However, the arbitration panel must, in accordance with the principle of party autonomy, comply with contractual content that does not constitute such restriction.},
  author       = {Nilsson, Johan},
  keyword      = {civilrätt,processrätt,civilprocessrätt,skiljeförfarande},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Giltigheten av process- och bevisöverenskommelser i skiljeförfarande},
  year         = {2020},
}