Avtalsbrott mot flerstegsklausuler - I gränslandet mellan process- och civilrätten
(2023) JURM02 20231Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Flerstegsklausuler anger att avtalsparter ska lösa tvister i olika steg. Fler-stegsklausulens försteg kan exempelvis ange att parterna i första hand ska lösa tvister genom medling. Klausulen avslutas alltid med ett slutsteg som föreskriver att parterna antingen får lösa tvister genom allmän domstol eller skiljeförfarande. Denna uppsats undersöker om civilrättsliga påföljder kan aktualiseras om en part begår avtalsbrott mot en flerstegsklausul. Avtalsbrot-tet sker genom att en avtalspart går direkt till flerstegsklausulens slutsteg utan att först ha genomfört klausulens föreskrivna försteg. Avtalsbrottet grundar sig alltså i att en part utnyttjar sin rätt till domstolsprövning.
För att civilrättsliga påföljder ska kunna aktualiseras krävs... (More) - Flerstegsklausuler anger att avtalsparter ska lösa tvister i olika steg. Fler-stegsklausulens försteg kan exempelvis ange att parterna i första hand ska lösa tvister genom medling. Klausulen avslutas alltid med ett slutsteg som föreskriver att parterna antingen får lösa tvister genom allmän domstol eller skiljeförfarande. Denna uppsats undersöker om civilrättsliga påföljder kan aktualiseras om en part begår avtalsbrott mot en flerstegsklausul. Avtalsbrot-tet sker genom att en avtalspart går direkt till flerstegsklausulens slutsteg utan att först ha genomfört klausulens föreskrivna försteg. Avtalsbrottet grundar sig alltså i att en part utnyttjar sin rätt till domstolsprövning.
För att civilrättsliga påföljder ska kunna aktualiseras krävs det att avtalet i fråga klassificeras som ett civilrättsligt avtal. Flerstegsklausuler, oavsett hur slutsteget är utformat, kan klassificeras såväl som processavtal som civilrätts-liga avtal. Däremot resulterar flerstegsklausuler som utgångspunkt inte i några processuella rättsverkningar. En flerstegsklausul som i slutsteget anger skiljeförfarande kan dock, om den är tydligt utformad, medföra att en skil-jenämnd finner sig obehörig att pröva tvisten. Utgångspunkten är dock att alla former av flerstegsklausuler utgör ogiltiga processavtal eftersom de inte medför några processuella rättsverkningar.
Huruvida flerstegsklausuler utgör civilrättsligt giltiga avtal är inte enkelt att bestämma. Rätten till domstolsprövning enligt artikel 6 (1) EKMR innebär inte en omedelbar rätt till domstolsprövning. Så länge flerstegsklausuler, oavsett vilken tvistlösningsform som föreskrivs i klausulens slutsteg, är tyd-ligt utformade och inte innebär att parterna avstår från rätten till domstols-prövning under en längre tid, strider sådana klausuler inte mot artikel 6 (1) EKMR.
Flerstegsklausuler som håller sig inom artikelns gränser bör därför utgöra civilrättsligt giltiga avtal. Civilrättsliga påföljder skulle därför kunna aktuali-seras vid avtalsbrott mot sådana klausuler. Däremot skulle ett eventuellt ut-dömt skadestånd möjligen kunna jämkas med stöd av 36 § AvtL. Det finns dock större argumentationsutrymme för att bedöma flerstegsklausuler som i slutsteget anger allmän domstol som civilrättsligt ogiltiga avtal. Detta då motsatt ordning skulle innebära att parterna indirekt ”skapat” ett process-hinder vilket bland annat rättegångsbalken (1942:740) förhindrar parter från att göra. Om en flerstegsklausul bedöms som civilrättsligt ogiltig kan dock skadestånd enligt det negativa intresset utgå.
Det finns vissa processuella argument för varför civilrättsliga påföljder inte skulle kunna aktualiseras vid avtalsbrott mot flerstegsklausuler. Min upp-fattning är dock att dessa processuella argument inte resulterar i att civil-rättsliga påföljder inte kan aktualiseras. Däremot kan man tänka sig att en skiljesvarande som förhåller sig passiv avseende en skiljenämnds behörighet samtidigt förlorar rätten att vid ett senare tillfälle göra gällande avtalsbrottet. (Less) - Abstract
- Multi-tiered clauses state that the parties shall resolve disputes in certain steps. For example, the first step of the multi-tiered clause may state that the parties should first resolve disputes through mediation. The last step of the clause always stipulates that the parties may either resolve disputes through general court or arbitration. This essay examines whether civil law sanctions can be applied if a party commits a breach of contract against a multi-tiered clause. The breach of contract occurs when a contracting party goes directly to the final step of the multi-tiered clause without having first implemented the clause's prescribed first step. The breach of contract is thus based on a party exercising its right to judicial... (More)
- Multi-tiered clauses state that the parties shall resolve disputes in certain steps. For example, the first step of the multi-tiered clause may state that the parties should first resolve disputes through mediation. The last step of the clause always stipulates that the parties may either resolve disputes through general court or arbitration. This essay examines whether civil law sanctions can be applied if a party commits a breach of contract against a multi-tiered clause. The breach of contract occurs when a contracting party goes directly to the final step of the multi-tiered clause without having first implemented the clause's prescribed first step. The breach of contract is thus based on a party exercising its right to judicial proceedings.
For civil law sanctions to be applicable, the agreement in question must be classified as a civil law contract. Multi-tiered clauses, regardless how the final step is designed, can be classified as both procedural and civil law agreements. However, as a general rule, multi-tiered clauses do not result in any procedural legal effects. However, a multi-tiered clause that stipulates arbitration in the final step may, if clearly drafted, result in an arbitral tribu-nal finding itself unauthorised to adjudicate the dispute. The judicial con-sensus, however, states that all forms of multi-tiered clauses constitute inva-lid procedural agreements since they do not have any procedural legal ef-fects.
Whether multi-tiered clauses constitute valid contracts under civil law is not a straightforward task to determine. The right to judicial proceedings under Article 6 (1) ECHR does not imply an immediate right to judicial proceed-ings. As long as multi-tiered clauses, irrespective of the form of dispute reso-lution stipulated in the final step of the clause, are clearly drafted and do not imply that the parties waive the right to judicial proceedings for an extended period of time, such clauses are not in violation of Article 6 (1) ECHR.
Multi-tiered clauses that remain within the limits of the Article should there-fore constitute valid civil law agreements. Civil law sanctions could there-fore be applied in case of breach of such clauses. On the other hand, any damages awarded could possibly be adjusted by virtue of Section 36 of the Contract Act. However, there is greater scope for argumentation to assess multi-tiered clauses which, in the final step, refer to the general court as in-valid agreements under civil law. This is because the opposite system would mean that the parties have indirectly "created" a procedural hindrance, which the Code of Judicial Procedure (1942:740) prevents parties from do-ing. However, if a multi-tiered clause is considered to be invalid under civil law, damages can be awarded according to the negative interest.
There are some procedural arguments why civil law sanctions could not be applied in case of breach of multi-tiered clauses. In my opinion, however, these procedural arguments do not result in civil law sanctions not being available. On the other hand, it is conceivable that an arbitration defendant who remains passive with regard to the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal also loses the right to claim the breach of contract at a later date. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9116390
- author
- Schultz, Ludvig LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- Breach of contract against multi-tiered clauses - Where procedural and civil law clash
- course
- JURM02 20231
- year
- 2023
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- Civilrätt, Avtalsrätt, Processrätt, Flerstegsklausuler, Multimodalklausuler, Avtalsbrott, Civilrättsliga påföljder
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9116390
- date added to LUP
- 2023-06-27 14:42:34
- date last changed
- 2023-06-27 14:42:34
@misc{9116390,
abstract = {{Multi-tiered clauses state that the parties shall resolve disputes in certain steps. For example, the first step of the multi-tiered clause may state that the parties should first resolve disputes through mediation. The last step of the clause always stipulates that the parties may either resolve disputes through general court or arbitration. This essay examines whether civil law sanctions can be applied if a party commits a breach of contract against a multi-tiered clause. The breach of contract occurs when a contracting party goes directly to the final step of the multi-tiered clause without having first implemented the clause's prescribed first step. The breach of contract is thus based on a party exercising its right to judicial proceedings.
For civil law sanctions to be applicable, the agreement in question must be classified as a civil law contract. Multi-tiered clauses, regardless how the final step is designed, can be classified as both procedural and civil law agreements. However, as a general rule, multi-tiered clauses do not result in any procedural legal effects. However, a multi-tiered clause that stipulates arbitration in the final step may, if clearly drafted, result in an arbitral tribu-nal finding itself unauthorised to adjudicate the dispute. The judicial con-sensus, however, states that all forms of multi-tiered clauses constitute inva-lid procedural agreements since they do not have any procedural legal ef-fects.
Whether multi-tiered clauses constitute valid contracts under civil law is not a straightforward task to determine. The right to judicial proceedings under Article 6 (1) ECHR does not imply an immediate right to judicial proceed-ings. As long as multi-tiered clauses, irrespective of the form of dispute reso-lution stipulated in the final step of the clause, are clearly drafted and do not imply that the parties waive the right to judicial proceedings for an extended period of time, such clauses are not in violation of Article 6 (1) ECHR.
Multi-tiered clauses that remain within the limits of the Article should there-fore constitute valid civil law agreements. Civil law sanctions could there-fore be applied in case of breach of such clauses. On the other hand, any damages awarded could possibly be adjusted by virtue of Section 36 of the Contract Act. However, there is greater scope for argumentation to assess multi-tiered clauses which, in the final step, refer to the general court as in-valid agreements under civil law. This is because the opposite system would mean that the parties have indirectly "created" a procedural hindrance, which the Code of Judicial Procedure (1942:740) prevents parties from do-ing. However, if a multi-tiered clause is considered to be invalid under civil law, damages can be awarded according to the negative interest.
There are some procedural arguments why civil law sanctions could not be applied in case of breach of multi-tiered clauses. In my opinion, however, these procedural arguments do not result in civil law sanctions not being available. On the other hand, it is conceivable that an arbitration defendant who remains passive with regard to the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal also loses the right to claim the breach of contract at a later date.}},
author = {{Schultz, Ludvig}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Avtalsbrott mot flerstegsklausuler - I gränslandet mellan process- och civilrätten}},
year = {{2023}},
}