Fysiska förhandlingar vid svenska skiljeförfaranden – Lagstadgad rätt eller hopplöst önskemål?
(2022) LAGF03 20222Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract
- With the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, national courts and arbitration tribunals around the world were forced to decide whether to cancel hearings while waiting for the spread of the disease to subside, or whether to conduct them using technical means. Many were quick to take advantage of the technological means available, and virtual hearings in which all participants are present via some form of audio and video transmission soon became commonplace. It was only when virtual hearings began being held against the parties' wishes that an uncertainty in the Swedish Arbitration Act was revealed concerning the meaning of the term "oral hearing" in Section 24 of the Act. The issue sparked a legal debate which also attracted international... (More)
- With the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, national courts and arbitration tribunals around the world were forced to decide whether to cancel hearings while waiting for the spread of the disease to subside, or whether to conduct them using technical means. Many were quick to take advantage of the technological means available, and virtual hearings in which all participants are present via some form of audio and video transmission soon became commonplace. It was only when virtual hearings began being held against the parties' wishes that an uncertainty in the Swedish Arbitration Act was revealed concerning the meaning of the term "oral hearing" in Section 24 of the Act. The issue sparked a legal debate which also attracted international attention, with some arguing that the term should be interpreted as intended when the law was written, i.e. as a physical hearing, and some arguing that the term should rather be interpreted in a technology-neutral way. The conclusion on this issue will determine whether it constitutes a challengeable procedural error to conduct a virtual hearing against a party's objection.
On 30 June 2022, the Svea Court of Appeal concluded in case no. T 7158-20 that the provision should be interpreted in a technology-neutral manner and that the tribunal's handling of the case had been justifiable under the prevailing circumstances. In view of the extreme circumstances of the case in question, and the fact that the Court of Appeal itself deemed it appropriate to allow for appeal in accordance with Article 43(2) of the Arbitration Act, the legal situation should still be regarded as uncertain.
The paper thus examines how the term "oral hearing" under Section 24 of the Arbitration Act should be interpreted and whether a right to attend a physical hearing can be considered to exist. Furthermore, it comments on the possibilities for tribunals to conduct virtual hearings in the future, i.e. when there is no pandemic, contrary to a party's request. (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- I samband med Covid-19-pandemins inträffande tvingades såväl allmänna domstolar som skiljenämnder världen över att ta ställning till om förhandlingar skulle ställas in i väntan på att smittspridningen skulle gå ner eller om de skulle genomföras med hjälp av tekniska hjälpmedel. Många var snabba med att utnyttja de tekniska möjligheter som stod till buds och det blev på kort tid vanligt med virtuella förhandlingar där samtliga deltagande närvarar via någon form av ljud- och bildöverföring. Först när virtuella förhandlingar började genomföras mot parters önskemål belystes en osäkerhet i den svenska skiljeförfarandelagen gällande innebörden av begreppet muntlig förhandling i 24 § lagen om skiljeförfarande (LSF). Frågan väckte en rättslig... (More)
- I samband med Covid-19-pandemins inträffande tvingades såväl allmänna domstolar som skiljenämnder världen över att ta ställning till om förhandlingar skulle ställas in i väntan på att smittspridningen skulle gå ner eller om de skulle genomföras med hjälp av tekniska hjälpmedel. Många var snabba med att utnyttja de tekniska möjligheter som stod till buds och det blev på kort tid vanligt med virtuella förhandlingar där samtliga deltagande närvarar via någon form av ljud- och bildöverföring. Först när virtuella förhandlingar började genomföras mot parters önskemål belystes en osäkerhet i den svenska skiljeförfarandelagen gällande innebörden av begreppet muntlig förhandling i 24 § lagen om skiljeförfarande (LSF). Frågan väckte en rättslig debatt som även fått internationell uppmärksamhet, där vissa hävdar att begreppet ska tolkas enligt vad som avsågs när lagen skrevs, det vill säga som en fysisk förhandling, och vissa hävdar att begreppet snarare ska tolkas teknikneutralt. Slutsatsen i denna fråga avgör huruvida det utgör ett klanderbart handläggningsfel att genomföra en virtuell förhandling mot en parts bestridande.
Den 30 juni 2022 har Svea hovrätt i mål nr T 7158-20 kommit fram till att bestämmelsen ska tolkas teknikneutralt och att skiljenämndens handläggning utifrån de rådande omständigheterna framstod som försvarlig. Med hänsyn till de extrema omständigheter som förelegat i det aktuella målet, samt att hovrätt-en själv funnit skäl att tillåta överklagande i enlighet med 43 § 2 st. LSF, bör rättsläget ännu betraktas som osäkert.
Uppsatsen utreder således hur begreppet muntlig förhandling enligt 24 § LSF ska tolkas och om det kan anses föreligga en rätt att få närvara vid en fysisk förhandling. Vidare kommenteras möjligheterna för skiljenämnder att i framtiden, det vill säga när det inte råder pandemi, genomföra virtuella förhandlingar i strid med en parts begäran. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9105210
- author
- Person, Lisa LU
- supervisor
-
- My Bergius LU
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20222
- year
- 2022
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- processrätt, skiljeförfarande, arbitration, virtuell förhandling, remote hearing, muntlig förhandling, oral hearing
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9105210
- date added to LUP
- 2023-02-03 16:35:08
- date last changed
- 2023-02-03 16:35:08
@misc{9105210,
abstract = {{With the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, national courts and arbitration tribunals around the world were forced to decide whether to cancel hearings while waiting for the spread of the disease to subside, or whether to conduct them using technical means. Many were quick to take advantage of the technological means available, and virtual hearings in which all participants are present via some form of audio and video transmission soon became commonplace. It was only when virtual hearings began being held against the parties' wishes that an uncertainty in the Swedish Arbitration Act was revealed concerning the meaning of the term "oral hearing" in Section 24 of the Act. The issue sparked a legal debate which also attracted international attention, with some arguing that the term should be interpreted as intended when the law was written, i.e. as a physical hearing, and some arguing that the term should rather be interpreted in a technology-neutral way. The conclusion on this issue will determine whether it constitutes a challengeable procedural error to conduct a virtual hearing against a party's objection.
On 30 June 2022, the Svea Court of Appeal concluded in case no. T 7158-20 that the provision should be interpreted in a technology-neutral manner and that the tribunal's handling of the case had been justifiable under the prevailing circumstances. In view of the extreme circumstances of the case in question, and the fact that the Court of Appeal itself deemed it appropriate to allow for appeal in accordance with Article 43(2) of the Arbitration Act, the legal situation should still be regarded as uncertain.
The paper thus examines how the term "oral hearing" under Section 24 of the Arbitration Act should be interpreted and whether a right to attend a physical hearing can be considered to exist. Furthermore, it comments on the possibilities for tribunals to conduct virtual hearings in the future, i.e. when there is no pandemic, contrary to a party's request.}},
author = {{Person, Lisa}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Fysiska förhandlingar vid svenska skiljeförfaranden – Lagstadgad rätt eller hopplöst önskemål?}},
year = {{2022}},
}