Dispute Resolution 2026 Comparisons

Commercial disputes in Sweden are typically resolved through litigation or arbitration, either ad hoc under the Arbitration Act or under the rules of an arbitration institute such as the SCC Arbitration Institute.

Mediation and various forms of expert determination are other, less frequently used, methods.

Non-contractual disputes – such as tort claims – are typically decided by the courts.

For contractual disputes, the preferred choice of dispute resolution method varies depending on the parties and matters involved. Disputes between small businesses or concerning small values are often litigated in court. This is also the case for consumer disputes. The Arbitration Act restricts the use of arbitration clauses in the relationship between businesses and consumers. Public authorities and state-owned entities also typically choose to refer their disputes to the courts. However, for contractual disputes between larger businesses, arbitration is often the preferred means of dispute resolution. A large number of commercial contracts of any complexity or concerning higher values include arbitration clauses. Arbitration clauses are also included in many standard agreements, such as the prevailing standard agreements in the field of construction.

Formalised mediation is seldom used. That said, most disputes are settled either before the initiation of legal proceedings or during the course of the proceedings, often through negotiations between counsel for the parties or with the assistance of the courts.

Expert determination, where the parties appoint one or several independent experts to opine on a disputed issue, is gaining in popularity.

One noticeable trend in dispute resolution is the continued increase in the use of digital tools, both for administrative matters and for research and drafting. Examples of the former include digital case management platforms implemented by arbitration institutes, such as the SCC, and the use of video conferencing for meetings and hearings, which has become more common both in arbitration and in court proceedings. The advent of AI and large language models has also started to impact how law firms process information and prepare their submissions.

Another trend concerns third-party funding, which has long been uncommon in Sweden, but which has seen an increase in recent years with several funders now active in the Swedish market.

The rules on limitation periods which apply to most claims for payment, are set out in the Limitation Act (Preskriptionslagen). The Limitation Act provides for a general limitation period of ten years (three years for claims against consumers). The limitation period starts to run when the claim materialises. For contractual claims, this is typically the date of the contract. For tort claims, the date of the act giving rise to the loss at issue is considered to start the clock. The limitation periods under the Limitation Act may be interrupted not only by the creditor initiating legal proceedings, but also by the debtor recognising the debt or by the creditor sending a claim in writing.

Special rules may apply to certain types of claims, for instance, in the fields of transportation law, labour law, insurance law and intellectual property law. Such rules often provide for shorter limitation periods and/or stricter requirements for interrupting them. In practice, many claims may also effectively become time-barred due to the obligation to give notice of breach of contract (reclamation) within a certain – often short – time, which is considered to be a general principle of Swedish contract law.

The Swedish court system consists of general courts, administrative courts and specialist courts.

The general courts decide criminal and civil cases, including most types of commercial disputes, while the administrative courts handle appeals of decisions of the administrative authorities on a wide range of matters, including taxes, administrative fines and permits. The specialist courts are courts with specific subject matter competence and jurisdiction over matters in their respective fields. The specialist courts – some of which are considered to be part of the system of general courts – include the patent and market courts, the land and environmental courts, and the labour court.

The courts of first instance in the system of general courts are the district courts. The district courts’ rulings can be appealed to courts of appeal. The Supreme Court is the court of last resort, but very few cases are given leave to appeal. This only happens where the Supreme Court finds that there is a need for precedence or where there have been severe procedural errors in the lower courts.

The administrative courts are structured in a similar manner with the administrative courts as the courts of first instance. Their decisions may be appealed to the administrative courts of appeal, and the Supreme Administrative Court as the court of last instance. 

Members of the Swedish Bar Association have an ethical obligation to notify the respondent before legal action is taken, in order to give the respondent the opportunity to settle the matter. Failure to observe this rule could lead to disciplinary sanctions for the advocate, but this does not prevent the initiation of proceedings as such. It should also be noted that this obligation does not apply where there are compelling reasons not to give advance notice. This could, for instance, be the case if a delay in initiating proceedings could lead to a loss of rights for the client.

Furthermore, under the Debt Recovery Act (Inkassolagen) – before legal action is taken – a creditor is generally required to give the debtor written notice of the claim and give a reasonable time for the debtor to pay voluntarily, or state its objections to the claim. Failure to do so could in theory result in liability for damages. Similar exceptions as those set out in the preceding paragraph apply.

Summons Application

Court proceedings in a commercial dispute start by the claimant submitting a summons application to the relevant district court and paying the application fee, currently SEK2,800. The summons application should include the request for relief and the circumstances on which the claim is based, as well as the evidence on which the claimant relies.

Service of Summons

The court administers the service of the summons on the respondent, which is requested to submit a written response (statement of defence) setting out the respondent’s position regarding the claim and the circumstances and evidence relied on. If the respondent does not provide its response on time, the court may issue a default judgment.

Written Submissions and Oral Preparatory Meeting

If the response is submitted, this is typically followed by further written submissions from the parties as directed by the court and an oral preparatory meeting. In this process, the parties usually elaborate on their previous statements and submit further evidence. The court is also obliged to encourage the parties to settle, which often happens at the preparatory meeting.

Main Hearing and Judgment

If there is no settlement, the case proceeds to the main hearing at which the full case, including written and oral evidence, is presented. The court thereafter decides the case and issues its judgment based on the information presented during the hearing.

Appeal

The district court’s judgment can be appealed to the Court of Appeal in the district court’s region. Leave to appeal is required but is typically granted in cases where it is not obvious that the district court’s decision is correct. The Court of Appeal reviews questions of both law and fact, including the evaluation of evidence. The judgment of the Court of Appeal may be further appealed to the Supreme Court, but room for leave to appeal is very limited.

Timeline

The time that court proceedings take may vary greatly, depending on the complexity of the matter and the case load of the courts. In commercial disputes, it often takes one to two years – in large cases sometimes more – before the district court’s judgment is rendered. Proceedings at the appellate level are often a little faster, but may take as long. If the case is appealed to the Supreme Court, a decision on whether leave to appeal is granted can be expected within six months. Should leave to appeal be granted – which very seldom happens – it may take a year or more for the Supreme Court to decide the case.

Under the Swedish principle of public access, court proceedings are open to the public. Anyone is free to attend any hearing without notice. Furthermore, anyone is entitled to request documents held by the courts, including decisions, judgments, submissions, and any other case-related materials.

There are only a few exceptions to this. The exception that is most relevant for commercial disputes is the confidentiality of information concerning a party’s business or operations, inventions, or research results. However, confidentiality only covers information the disclosure of which could be assumed to result in substantial harm, and is therefore narrowly applied.

Where access to a document containing confidential information is requested, the court will provide the document in redacted form with only the sensitive parts concealed. Similarly, if confidential information is to be presented at a hearing, the court may order that that specific part of the proceedings be held behind closed doors. Regarding other parts, the hearing will remain open to the public. 

Under the Code of Judicial Procedure, a party may request the court to order seizure of property, injunctions or other appropriate measures to protect the claimant’s rights. Such an order may be combined with a fine that becomes payable should the respondent not comply.

Interim measures can be ordered on an ex parte basis (ie, without first hearing the respondent) if a delay would risk the effectiveness of the measure that is sought. Interim measures can also be ordered before the initiation of proceedings in respect of the main claim. The claimant has strict liability for the loss that the respondent may suffer if an interim measure is wrongfully ordered, and must provide security that covers such potential loss.

For certain types of claims, special rules apply. For instance, in certain IP infringement cases, the claimant can – in addition to other measures – apply for an investigation into the occurrence of an infringement.

There are no generally available statistics on the prevalence of interim measures. However, the rules on liability for loss and the requirement to provide security have the effect that interim measures are typically only sought where there is perceived to be a real and pressing need.

The Code of Judicial Procedure differentiates between two main types of actions: requests for performance and for declaratory relief.

A request for performance can be for payment of monetary obligations or for specific performance. The vast majority of cases concern payment claims.

A request for declaratory relief is where the claimant asks the court to determine the existence or non-existence of a legal relationship. A common example is where the claimant wants the court to establish that the respondent is liable for damages as a result of a certain event, without fixing the amount of the damages. Actions for declaratory relief are only allowed under certain circumstances, essentially that it is unclear whether the legal relationship exists, that this uncertainty is detrimental to the claimant, and that such an action is otherwise appropriate.

Damages are assessed on the premise that the injured party should be placed in the same situation as if the event giving rise to the loss had never occurred. The starting point is that it is for the claimant to prove its actual loss and that there is an adequate causal link between the harmful act and the loss. In cases where it would be impossible or unduly difficult or costly to present full evidence on the amount of the loss, the courts can fix the damages at a reasonable amount pursuant to a specific provision of the Code of Judicial Procedure. However, the bar for applying this provision is high.

Punitive damages or other types of non-compensatory damages or penalties can also be awarded where there is support for that in legislation or in the parties’ contract.       

Arbitration proceedings are very common, especially for contractual disputes between companies.

Parties often choose arbitration to avoid having to resolve their disputes in public and because arbitration is typically much faster than court proceedings. For international contracts, considerations regarding enforceability also often play a part. Commercial contracts of any complexity or concerning higher values therefore often include arbitration clauses. For instance, practically all M&A contracts provide for resolution of disputes through arbitration. Arbitration clauses are also included in many standard agreements, such as the prevailing Swedish standard agreements in the field of construction.

Any dispute that the parties can settle is arbitrable. This means that most commercial matters can be referred to arbitration. Examples of non-arbitrable matters include questions of criminal liability and concerning family status, such as marriage and adoption, as well as certain matters relating to insolvency and competition law.

In some situations, arbitration clauses may also be considered unreasonable and may therefore be held invalid. For instance, this could be the case in employment relationships. In a similar vein, the Arbitration Act provides that before-the-event arbitration agreements for consumer disputes are invalid.

Furthermore, the Court of Justice of the European Union has held in a series of rulings starting with the Achmea case (C‑284/16), that arbitration agreements concerning intra-EU investor-state disputes are incompatible with EU law.

Arbitration is generally significantly faster than court proceedings, since the dispute is decided in one instance without the possibility of appeal. This can sometimes also result in cost savings for the parties that outweigh the additional costs for the arbitrators and any arbitration institute that is involved. Parties also often value the possibility to appoint arbitrators with specific expertise in the field at issue, something which cannot always be guaranteed in court proceedings. Another often-cited benefit of arbitration is the private nature of the proceedings, as most parties prefer not to resolve their disputes in public. Finally, arbitral awards are internationally enforceable in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “1958 New York Convention”), which can be essential in contracts between parties from different countries.

The main perceived disadvantage of arbitration is that the parties must pay the fees of the arbitrators and any arbitration institute. This means that the cost of arbitration can be higher than the cost of court proceedings, especially in smaller cases. The additional costs also risk creating an imbalance between the parties that could ultimately lead to a financially weaker party refraining from asserting its rights. Another often-mentioned aspect is the one-instance nature of the proceedings, which could result in materially incorrect decisions becoming binding. Lastly, since the proceedings are private and the awards generally do not become public, arbitration does not contribute to the general development of the law.

The SCC Arbitration Institute (formerly the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce) is the leading arbitration institution in Sweden, with a caseload of approximately 200 cases per year. The SCC administers both commercial arbitrations and investment arbitrations. The SCC also provides services in the field of mediation and other types of ADR.

The ICC Court of Arbitration is another arbitration institution that regularly administers arbitrations seated in Sweden or to which Swedish parties recurringly refer disputes.

Many arbitration proceedings in Sweden are conducted ad hoc, without the involvement of any arbitration institution.

The length of arbitration proceedings can vary greatly depending on the type of dispute and the parties and arbitrators involved. However, arbitrators have a general duty to conduct the arbitration in an expeditious manner and arbitration proceedings are typically considerably faster than court proceedings.

Many arbitrations in Sweden are administered by the SCC Arbitration Institute, either under its rules for expedited arbitrations or under its ordinary rules. The statistics published by the SCC Arbitration Institute give an indication of the handling times that can be expected. According to the most recent figures from the SCC, an expedited arbitration takes on average 3.7 months and an ordinary arbitration on average 13.6 months, in both cases counted from the date on which the case was referred to the arbitral tribunal until the award was rendered.

The central rules on arbitration in Sweden are set out in the Arbitration Act. The Arbitration Act applies to arbitration proceedings seated in Sweden, even if the dispute has an international connection.

The Arbitration Act contains rules covering most aspects of arbitration proceedings, including the validity of the arbitration agreement, the appointment of the arbitrators, how the proceedings should be conducted, the rendering of the arbitral award, and the possibility of challenging an arbitral award through an action for annulment or invalidity. The Arbitration Act also regulates the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Sweden.

The courts have several powers to support arbitration. These include the power to appoint arbitrators in certain circumstances, to order interim measures at the request of a party to arbitration proceedings, and to assist with the taking of evidence in arbitration, such as hearing the testimony of witnesses under oath or ordering document production.

The courts can also decide questions of challenges to arbitrators or concerning the tribunal’s jurisdiction and, after an arbitral award has been rendered, they can review whether the award should be set aside or declared invalid. The courts also try matters of recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Sweden.       

Courts in Sweden will never intervene in an arbitration on their own initiative. At the request of a party, the court can in certain circumstances remove an arbitrator or decide questions concerning the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction while the proceedings are ongoing. After the arbitral award has been rendered, a party can request that the courts review whether the award should be set aside or declared invalid due to irregularities during the proceedings or non-compliance with formal requirements.

In Sweden, arbitral tribunals may grant essentially the same types of final relief as Swedish courts, including orders for payment, specific performance and declaratory relief. The room for declaratory relief is wider in arbitration than in court proceedings.

Arbitral tribunals may also order interim relief. However, such orders are generally not enforceable in Sweden. Therefore, parties often instead seek interim measures from the courts. Some institutional rules allow tribunals to grant interim measures in the form of awards, but it is unclear whether such awards are enforceable in Sweden.

Parties sometimes seek to resolve their disputes through mediation, rather than through litigation or arbitration.

Mediation

Mediation is a voluntary dispute resolution procedure in which a neutral third party, a mediator, helps the parties negotiate a mutual solution to their dispute. The mediator does not make any decisions but facilitates dialogue and tries to help the parties reach an agreement. If the parties reach a solution, it is usually documented in a settlement agreement. Depending on the framework for the mediation, the settlement can also be confirmed in an arbitral award or declared enforceable by a court.

In pending court proceedings, the court may – with the parties’ consent – refer the dispute to a mediator under provisions of the Code of Judicial Procedure. The parties can also initiate mediation on their own initiative, for which there are provisions in the Mediation Act (lagen om medling i vissa privaträttsliga tvister). The SCC Arbitration Institute and other institutes also offer mediation services. However, formalised mediation is seldom used in Sweden.

Expert Determination

It also happens that parties refer disputes to various types of expert determination, where one or several independent experts give an opinion on a disputed matter. The parties can agree what effect the opinion will have, for example, whether it should merely be guiding for further discussions between the parties, contractually binding, or have the effect of an arbitral award. The SCC offers a service of this kind called Express Dispute Assessment, through which the parties can have their dispute assessed by a neutral person within three weeks.

Mediation under the Code of Judicial Procedure is decided by the court, but requires the consent of the parties.

Mediation under the Mediation Act is typically initiated by the parties agreeing on mediation in an existing dispute. The agreement does not have to be in writing but often is.

For institutional mediation or other types of administered ADR, the applicable rules set out the relevant requirements. For instance, the Mediation Rules of the SCC Arbitration Institute provide that mediation will be initiated by a request for mediation that is sent to the SCC. An administrative fee must also be paid.

A party’s right to initiate legal proceedings is generally not affected by taking part in ADR. ADR procedures are voluntary, and based on the parties agreeing to them. This means that a party can normally withdraw from the proceedings at any time without consequence, or even initiate court or arbitration proceedings in parallel with the ADR procedure. However, the parties can agree on specific rules in this respect, which may impact the right to proceed to litigation or arbitration without consequences.

ADR typically takes place before court or arbitration proceedings are initiated, but it can also occur during the proceedings. Notably, Swedish courts are obliged to encourage settlements and have the power, if the parties agree, to refer the dispute to a mediator.

There are no general rules governing the effect of ADR on limitation periods. However, in the case of mediation under the Mediation Act, limitation periods are automatically extended until at least one month after the mediation proceedings have been concluded, unless other rules apply under treaties to which Sweden is a party.

The parties participating in ADR are not bound by any automatic duty of confidentiality, but they usually agree that confidentiality will apply. Provisions on confidentiality covering both the parties and the person(s) administering the ADR are often included in institutional ADR rules such as the SCC Mediation and Express Dispute Assessment Rules.

The person(s) administering ADR, such as the mediator in the case of mediation or the independent expert in the case of expert determination, are typically bound by confidentiality. A mediator appointed under the Mediation Act has a statutory duty of confidentiality covering information that comes to the mediator’s attention during the mediation process. A similar duty also often applies to persons administering other forms of ADR, pursuant to the agreement under which they were appointed, either under express provisions (such as those mentioned in the preceding paragraph) or as an implied term for the assignment.

The Code of Judicial Procedure expressly prohibits questioning of a mediator appointed under the Code of Judicial Procedure or the Mediation Act on what they have learnt in connection with the assignment.

The allocation of costs in ADR proceedings is determined by the parties’ agreement. In the absence of any specific terms in this regard, the costs are typically shared equally between the parties.

The courts generally take a positive view of ADR. They are obliged to encourage the parties to settle the dispute, unless this would be inappropriate considering the nature of the matter and other circumstances, and they even have the power to refer the dispute to a mediator with the parties’ consent.

The general rule in civil cases in court is that the losing party reimburses the winning party’s reasonable legal costs. The same principle is usually also applied in arbitration.

Third-party funding is available in Sweden and has seen an increase in recent years, but it remains relatively uncommon.

The Code of Conduct of the Swedish Bar Association prohibits, in principle, that members of the bar (advocates) make fee arrangements which give the attorney the right to a share of the outcome of a dispute. Exceptions are possible in special circumstances. One such situation concerns representation in a class action, in which case, the terms of the fee arrangement are subject to certain restrictions set out in the Class Action Act (lagen om grupprättegång) and must be approved by the court. Another situation where an exception is possible is if the client would in effect be denied access to justice without a contingency fee arrangement. However, the fee arrangement must never result in the attorney’s financial self-interest becoming disproportionate or negatively affecting the performance of the assignment. The client’s interests must always come first.

Insurance coverage for costs for legal proceedings is a common component in most business insurances. The terms for coverage depend on the insurance policy and may therefore vary. However, costs for the party’s own and the opposing party’s legal fees are usually covered up to a certain amount, regardless of whether the dispute is resolved through litigation or arbitration, but the fees of arbitrators and arbitration institutes are often not included in the coverage. For mediation and other types of ADR, the fees of mediators appointed under the Code of Judicial Procedure are often included in the coverage, but typically not the costs for other types of ADR.

In civil cases in court proceedings, the “loser pays” principle applies, meaning that the losing party is typically ordered to pay the winning party’s reasonable legal costs. In the case of mixed outcomes, the cost allocation is adjusted accordingly. A similar approach is commonly adopted in arbitration proceedings in Sweden.

Both courts and arbitral tribunals normally allocate costs between the parties based on the outcome of the dispute, such that the losing party is ordered to reimburse the winning party’s costs. However, this principle may be deviated from, for instance, if a party has unduly burdened the case with unjustified objections.

Compensation is awarded only for costs that were reasonably necessary to defend the party’s rights. This typically includes attorney’s fees, costs for investigations and evidence, as well as the party’s own work. Costs submissions are often very short, only containing the amounts requested and a brief description of what they relate to. The court or arbitral tribunal makes its assessment of the reasonableness based, mainly, on the nature and scope of the case and what has transpired during the proceedings.

Interim measures are provisional court orders intended to secure a party’s rights during ongoing proceedings.

The most common forms are attachment (ie, the freezing of assets to secure a monetary claim or the right to specific property) and injunctions (ie, orders aimed at stopping ongoing harmful conduct, such as an intellectual property infringement) pending a final judgment. The courts, however, have broad powers to order other suitable measures to protect the claimant’s rights. Such orders may be combined with a fine that becomes payable in case of non-compliance. 

Generally, in order for a request for interim relief to be granted, the applicant must demonstrate probable cause for the claim and that there is a risk that the opposing party will undermine the applicant’s rights. A proportionality assessment is always conducted, and the applicant must, as a rule, provide financial security to cover any damage caused to the opposing party by the imposition of the requested measure.

Under the Arbitration Act, courts may, regardless of the fact that the dispute is subject to an arbitration agreement, issue orders for interim measures both before and after the initiation of arbitration proceedings.

Applications for interim measures are typically made before, or at the very outset of, legal proceedings in respect of the main claim.

Both the Code of Judicial Procedure and the Arbitration Act allow courts to issue orders on interim relief before and at any point during the proceedings.

Arbitrators cannot issue interim measures before the arbitral tribunal has been constituted, which usually takes some time. Certain arbitration institutes, such as the SCC, have therefore issued rules on emergency arbitrations, which make it possible for interim measures to be ordered by an interim arbitrator that is appointed before the initiation of the main proceedings.

There is no general right for a party to request security for its costs.

However, in court proceedings, foreign claimants (not including claimants from the EEA and certain other countries) bringing claims against a Swedish or EEA party may be ordered to provide security for the respondent’s costs, if requested by the respondent in its first submission. If security is not provided, the case will be dismissed.

Certain arbitration rules also expressly provide for the possibility to issue interim orders on costs. For instance, the Arbitration Rules of the SCC Arbitration Institute provide that an arbitral tribunal may, in exceptional circumstances and at the request of a party, order a claimant or counterclaimant to provide security for costs in a manner the arbitral tribunal deems appropriate. This can happen at any time during the proceedings. If a party fails to comply with such an order, the arbitral tribunal may stay or terminate the proceedings in whole or in part.

It is possible for a party to apply for interim injunctions in Sweden. In general civil law cases, this follows from Chapter 15, Section 3 of the Code of Judicial Procedure, which provides for a right for courts to order “other” appropriate measures to safeguard the applicant’s rights pending the final resolution of the dispute. Such measures may involve a prohibition, subject to a fine, on engaging in certain activities or performing certain acts.

In this connection it should be noted that the position of Swedish law is that interim measures, as a general rule, should not be ordered where the disputed matter as such would effectively be determined by the interim order. This applies in particular if the ordered measure cannot be reversed. Only in special circumstances would an interim order with that effect be allowed. In the words of the Supreme Court in the case NJA 2018 p 189, this would be in “situations where immediate satisfaction of the applicant’s rights […] are of very significant importance to him or her”.

The general rule in the Code of Judicial Procedure is that a case must be decided following a main hearing, or – if the case can be decided without a hearing – following a full exchange of written submissions on the matter.

There are, however, certain situations where courts may decide a case in simpler forms. For example, if the claimant’s complaint clearly lacks merit, the court may immediately render a judgment without issuing a summons. The court may also issue a default judgment against a party that fails to participate in the proceedings in material respects, such as by failing to file a response or failing to appear at a hearing. Furthermore, the Code of Judicial Procedure allows for matters that are of immediate relevance to the outcome of the dispute or that can be isolated from other parts of the case to be decided separately.

The starting point in arbitration is also that a full review of the case must be made before the award is rendered. However, as in the case of court proceedings, the Arbitration Act allows for separate awards to be rendered on separate issues or parts of the dispute. It is also possible for the parties to agree on simplified procedures, as long as due process requirements are met. In that vein, the SCC Arbitration Rules provide that a party may request that the arbitral tribunal decide one or more issues of fact or law by way of summary procedure, without necessarily taking every procedural step that might otherwise be adopted in an arbitration.

In Sweden, there are two different categories of class action lawsuits for which there are different systems.

Class Action Act

The first is governed by the general Class Action Act. The Class Action Act allows for any type of civil proceedings in general courts to be brought by a representative for a wider group (class) of claimants on the conditions set out in the Act.

The representative could be either a class member, a non-profit consumer or employee organisation, or a designated public authority.

In addition to the requirements in respect of standing, the Class Action Act sets forth the following conditions for bringing a class action:

• the action must be based on circumstances that are common for, or similar to, the claims of the class members;
• the class action does not appear inappropriate due to the fact that the grounds for certain class members’ claims differ substantially from those of other claims;
• the majority of the claims covered by the action could not be asserted as effectively through actions brought by the class members themselves;
• the class is appropriately defined in terms of size, scope and other factors; and
• the claimant, in light of its interest in the matter, its financial capacity to bring a class action, and other circumstances, is suitable to represent the class members in the case.

The judgment in the class action will only be binding on the class members who opt in.

Act on Class Actions for the Protection of Consumers’ Collective Interests

The second system follows from the Act on Class Actions for the Protection of Consumers’ Collective Interests (lag om grupptalan till skydd för konsumenters kollektiva intressen), which implements an EU Directive. This Act is specifically designed for consumer protection and gives the right to specifically authorised entities to seek prohibitions and payment of fines, and to claim compensation or other remedies on behalf of class members against businesses that are found to violate consumer protection legislation.

Under the Class Action Act, the following requirements apply for standing to sue:

• An individual class action may be brought by a natural or legal person who has a claim covered by the action and is considered suitable in light of its interest in the matter, its financial capacity and other circumstances.
• An organisational class action may be brought by a non-profit association that, in accordance with its by-laws, represents the interests of consumers or employees in disputes between consumers and a business regarding any goods, services or other benefits that the business offers to consumers.
• A public class action may be brought by a government agency that, given the nature of the dispute, is suitable to represent the class members. The government determines which agencies may bring a public class action.

Class actions under the Act on Class Actions for the Protection of Consumers’ Collective Interests may only be brought by specifically authorised entities meeting certain requirements set out in the Act. Currently, the Swedish Consumer Agency is the only authorised entity in Sweden.

Any party whose claim is covered by the action may participate. The judgment in the case will only be binding on the members who actively opt in. 

Under the Class Action Act, it is possible to bring any type of claim that could be brought in general civil proceedings. Available remedies therefore mainly depend on the substantive laws relevant to the dispute at issue. In practice, most class action claims are for damages or other types of monetary compensation.

As regards damages, the basis for calculation varies across different areas of law. However, the starting point under Swedish law is that the injured party should be restored to the same financial position as if the harmful act had not occurred. This requires proof of the loss that has been suffered and that there is an adequate causal link between the harmful act and the loss. If it is difficult to prove the exact amount of the loss, the court may in certain circumstances estimate it at a reasonable amount. In certain areas of law, standardised or non-compensatory damages may also be awarded.

Class actions and mass claims are practically never brought in arbitration. Arbitration is based on an agreement between the parties, and the system is designed for disputes between one claimant and one respondent. While the Swedish Arbitration Act, as well as the rules of several arbitration institutes allow for consolidation of proceedings and joining of parties in certain situations, there does not appear to be any evidence of class action or mass claim type of disputes having been decided in arbitration. One further limiting factor in this connection is that arbitration agreements covering consumer disputes which have been entered into before the dispute at issue arose, are generally invalid and cannot be enforced.

Class-action lawsuits are very uncommon in Sweden, with only a couple of cases brought each year. Mass claims are also uncommon. However, there have been a few high-profile cases in recent years.

Because of the small sample size, it is difficult to identify any particular trends. However, it is likely that the number of class actions will increase following the enactment of the Act on Class Actions for the Protection of Consumers’ Collective Interests. One area where an increase can be predicted is claims for damages for violations of data protection legislation.

Swedish law takes a relatively restrictive approach to document production, and there is no general discovery-style disclosure.

The Code of Judicial Procedure provides that a party, or a third party, who is in possession of a document that may serve as evidence can be ordered to present it. Also, categories of documents may be requested. Exceptions apply for personal notes, unless there are special reasons for disclosure, as well as for documents covered by privilege or confidentiality.

In theory, the rules allow for relatively wide document production. However, in practice, their reach is limited by requirements that the document or category of documents at issue must be relevant and sufficiently clearly identified. The courts also tend to interpret the exceptions broadly.

Arbitral tribunals also have the power to order document production, but such orders are not considered enforceable. The reach of any disclosure obligation in arbitration is decided by the parties and the arbitral tribunal. In international arbitration proceedings, the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration are often applied.

Privilege is mainly regulated in Chapter 36 of the Code of Judicial Procedure. The rules are technical and complicated but, in short, provide for a prohibition on questioning of certain categories of professionals, such as attorneys, certain mediators, medical doctors and priests, about confidential information that they have received in the course of their professional practice. Exceptions may apply, for instance, relating to information about certain serious crimes.

Documents may be withheld from production, if their content would be protected by a prohibition on questioning as set out above.

Privilege may be lifted if the party in favour of whom privilege applies consents to disclosure.

Very little information is considered confidential such that it would be possible to withhold it as evidence, unless it is also covered by privilege. The confidentiality exception that is of greatest relevance in commercial disputes relates to trade secrets, which are nevertheless afforded limited protection in evidentiary proceedings.

In Sweden, there is a general duty to testify in court proceedings. This means that anyone who is summoned as a witness is obliged to appear before the court and answer questions truthfully under oath. Certain exceptions apply, for instance, for family members of the parties.

There is no obligation to answer questions outside of the formal testimony in court. Thus, a party has no right to depose witnesses before the hearing, unless the witnesses volunteer to answer questions. The unpredictability that this could be perceived to result in is mitigated by a requirement that the parties must state what circumstances the witnesses will testify on before the hearing. Written witness statements are seldom used, although the rules in this regard have recently been made more liberal.

The testimony starts with the witness giving its statement, guided by open questions from the party invoking the witness. This is followed by cross-examination during which leading questions are allowed and, if necessary, re-direct.

There is no duty to testify in arbitration. Therefore, if a witness in arbitration proceedings objects to testifying, or if there is a perceived risk that the witness will not tell the truth, a party may request that the witness be heard in court under the regime accounted for above. As regards the form of the testimony in arbitration, this is for the parties and arbitral tribunal to decide within the boundaries of due process requirements. Witness statements are more frequent in arbitration proceedings. If witness statements are provided, the written statement typically serves as the main testimony and the questions at the hearing start with cross-examination.

As a main rule, the parties are responsible for providing the evidence in the case. This also applies to expert evidence. Therefore, on matters where expert evidence is needed, the parties typically call their respective expert witnesses. The experts provide written statements on which they then testify under oath at the hearing.

There is also a possibility for the court to request expert evidence in the form of an opinion from an authority, public official, or other person designated to provide an opinion on the matter. The person providing the opinion may also be called to testify at the request of either party. However, court-appointed experts are very rare.

Expert evidence is typically handled in a similar manner in arbitration, ie, expert evidence is provided by the parties in the form of expert statements on which the experts then testify at the hearing (without taking an oath). The arbitral tribunal also has the power to appoint experts, unless both parties object, but this possibility is hardly ever used in practice. 

As a starting point, foreign court judgments are not recognised or enforced in Sweden. There are, however, exceptions to this, the most notable being the EU Brussels I Regulation-regime under which judgments from other EU member states are recognised and enforced without any specific procedure being required.

Where there is no statutory support for recognition/enforcement of a foreign judgment, the matter must in principle be re-examined by the Swedish courts (or the courts of another EU member state) in order to be recognised and enforceable in Sweden.

Domestic arbitral awards are enforced in the same manner as Swedish court judgments, ie, by the party that seeks enforcement submitting a request to the Swedish Enforcement Authority (Kronofogdemyndigheten) which then takes relevant measures to give effect to the award, such as seizing and selling the debtor’s assets.

Enforcement of foreign arbitral awards requires a two-step procedure. First, the Svea Court of Appeal must, in exequatur proceedings, examine whether there are grounds for refusing enforcement under the Arbitration Act. If there are no grounds, and the Court of Appeal reaches a positive decision regarding the award, the award can be submitted to the Swedish Enforcement Authority as set out above.

There is no fixed timeframe for how long enforcement proceedings take. They can take anywhere from a few months to several years. Factors affecting the timeframe include:

• whether the debtor is co-operating;
• whether there are assets to seize;
• the workload of the Enforcement Authority; and
• the type of enforcement.

Foreign court judgments are generally not enforceable in Sweden. The most notable exception to this concerns judgments from other EU countries which are enforceable under the EU Brussels I Regulation. When enforcement is sought under the Brussels I Regulation, the debtor may apply for enforcement to be refused in the limited circumstances set out in the Regulation. These include cases where enforcement would be contrary to Swedish public policy, in the case of default judgments without proper service, or if the judgment is incompatible with another judgment.

The grounds for refusal of foreign arbitral awards pursuant to the Arbitration Act correspond to those set out in Article V of the 1958 New York Convention. In short, these are:

• that there was no valid arbitration agreement;
• that the party against whom enforcement is sought was not given the opportunity to present its case in the arbitration proceedings;
• that the award deals with a matter that was not covered by the request for arbitration or the arbitration agreement;
• that there were errors in the composition of the tribunal or in how the arbitration proceedings were conducted;
• that the award is not yet binding or has been set aside or suspended;
• that the matter decided in the award was not arbitrable; or
• that enforcement would be contrary to Swedish public policy.

Sweden does not currently have any particular domestic laws on the use of AI in dispute resolution. However, the EU’s AI Regulation, which is directly applicable in Sweden, provides a regulatory framework regarding AI that also impacts the use of AI in the context of dispute resolution.

The AI Regulation classifies AI systems used by judicial authorities in researching and interpreting facts and the law, and in applying the law to a concrete set of facts, as high risk. The same applies to AI systems intended to be used by alternative dispute resolution bodies for such purposes. This entails strict requirements regarding transparency, data quality and human oversight.

A key principle is that the use of AI tools can support the decision-making power of judges or judicial independence, but should not replace it. The final decision-making must remain a human-driven activity.

AI is not used for dispute resolution as such, in the sense that decision-making is delegated to AI agents. However, courts, arbitrators, parties and counsel use AI tools to varying degrees for assistance with research, summaries, drafting and various administrative tasks.

It remains to be seen what impact AI will have on dispute resolution as a whole, beyond gains in efficiency. However, an effect that can already be seen is an apparent improvement in the quality of submissions prepared by parties that do not have qualified counsel.

Courts in Sweden generally do not use AI at present, but there are working groups looking into how AI could be implemented. 

The use of AI in dispute resolution in Sweden is likely to increase gradually, but with a focus on preparatory and administrative tasks. It will probably take time before AI, if ever, is entrusted with any decision-making. If that happens, it is likely to start in small, standardised matters, with the possibility for review by judges.