International arbitration is widely used and well-established as a dispute resolution mechanism in Sweden. The jurisdiction benefits from a strong pro-arbitration legal framework and experienced arbitration practitioners. Arbitration is also frequently chosen in purely domestic disputes, and remains a common alternative to litigation.

Sweden serves as a popular seat for international arbitrations, with the SCC Arbitration Institute (SCC) being one of the leading arbitral institutions globally. The SCC was founded in 1917 and has over the years demonstrated a strong capacity to evolve and adapt to parties’ needs for effective dispute resolution. Both institutional arbitration under established rules and ad hoc arbitrations are commonly employed.

Swedish arbitration serves diverse commercial sectors, with certain industries showing particular activity. Based on SCC statistics from 2025, the most common disputes concerned the following:

• real estate and construction;
• financial services;
• retail and consumer products;
• energy; and
• technology.

Other notable sectors include:

• media and entertainment;
• automotive industry;
• manufacturing;
• mining and metals; and
• life sciences.

Several factors explain why these particular industries are experiencing heightened international arbitration activity. The leading sectors are inherently international in scope, involving complex supply chains, international partnerships, and cross-border transactions that frequently result in disputes requiring specialised resolution mechanisms. In 2025, the total amount in dispute across all SCC cases reached EUR4.6 billion, with an average dispute value of EUR16 million under the SCC Arbitration Rules, indicating that these industries involve substantial commercial relationships where arbitration’s confidentiality, enforceability and expertise advantages are particularly valuable.

The contract types most frequently disputed support this analysis, as the most common disputes in 2025 concerned business acquisitions (M&A), real estate and construction agreements, and purchase agreements – all prevalent in these leading industry sectors. The international character of these disputes is further evidenced by the 2025 statistics: 568 parties from 50 different countries resolved their disputes at the SCC, with 107 (50%) international disputes and 106 (50%) Swedish disputes (involving only Swedish parties).

Further, industries such as financial services, energy and technology involve regulatory frameworks and technical issues that benefit from arbitrators with specialised expertise, making arbitration more attractive than litigation.

It is also worth noting that court proceedings in Sweden are subject to the principle of public access to official records, making arbitration’s confidentiality particularly valuable to the parties.

The SCC administers the majority of institutional arbitrations seated in Sweden. The current SCC Arbitration Rules became effective on 1 January 2023 (the “SCC Rules”) and apply to all arbitrations initiated from that date onwards. The ICC represents the second most popular institutional choice for Swedish-seated arbitrations. Over the past decade, the ICC has gained increasing acceptance across Nordic jurisdictions, particularly amongst international corporations operating across multiple markets. Swedish parties also make use, to a lesser extent, of other leading institutions such as the LCIA and the ICDR/AAA.

Swedish courts maintain a supportive but limited role in arbitral proceedings, intervening only when specifically requested by a party and only for matters provided in the Swedish Arbitration Act (SAA). Certain courts, however, have been designated to handle arbitration-related matters. Where the seat of arbitration is Stockholm, as is the case in the majority of arbitrations seated in Sweden, the Svea Court of Appeal has exclusive jurisdiction over challenges to arbitral awards and applications concerning recognition and enforcement. For matters at first instance, such as the appointment or removal of arbitrators or applications for interim relief, the competent court is generally the district court. If no other basis for jurisdiction exists, the Stockholm District Court acts as the default competent forum. This framework ensures that arbitral proceedings remain independent, while allowing courts to provide necessary assistance for procedural matters when required.

Arbitration proceedings in Sweden are governed by the SAA. Section 46 of the SAA provides that the SAA is applicable to both domestic and international arbitration proceedings, provided that the seat of arbitration is in Sweden.

Swedish legislators chose not to base the SAA directly on the UNCITRAL Model Law in terms of structure or content. However, the Model Law was considered important and influenced the regulation of various issues. Solutions supported by the Model Law are accorded significant weight and inherent value. In practice, the SAA is largely consistent with the Model Law in almost all material respects. Where there are differences, the Swedish regime is generally regarded as even more arbitration-friendly: for example, by providing greater scope for party autonomy and limiting the grounds on which the Swedish courts may intervene.

There have been no significant changes to Swedish arbitration law in the past year, nor is there any pending legislation that may alter the arbitration landscape in Sweden.

The SAA does not prescribe any particular form for an arbitration agreement, meaning that written and oral agreements, as well as agreements entered into by conduct, are enforceable. However, in practice, most arbitration agreements are concluded in writing to ensure clarity.

For enforceability under Swedish law, an arbitration agreement must satisfy certain key elements. An arbitration agreement concerning future disputes must specify the legal relationship to which the agreement relates. The agreement cannot simply state that “all disputes” between the parties will be arbitrated – it must identify the specific contractual or legal relationship from which potential disputes may arise. Additionally, the agreement must unambiguously indicate that arbitration is the chosen dispute resolution method for the specified legal relationship (Section 1 of the SAA).

A valid arbitration agreement bars court proceedings. When parties have agreed to arbitrate, courts will decline jurisdiction over disputes that fall within the arbitration clause’s scope upon request of an objecting party. Parties must actively invoke their arbitration clauses – courts will not automatically dismiss proceedings without an objection from a party.

The Swedish framework balances respect for party autonomy with procedural fairness, requiring parties to actively invoke arbitration rights while protecting against agreements that undermine equitable dispute resolution. Courts will refuse enforcement only in limited circumstances. In recognition of the parties’ contractual freedom, courts will uphold an arbitration agreement unless it is contractually void – for example, if it was produced through duress or fraud.

Pursuant to Section 1 of the SAA, disputes are generally considered arbitrable if the parties may validly settle them out of court (dispositive disputes). This excludes disputes involving non-dispositive issues, such as proceedings concerning the formation, division or consolidation of land parcels under property law, as well as family law proceedings determining legal status (including divorce, paternity and adoption). Arbitrability is thus determined primarily by substantive law, rather than national procedural law.

Within the commercial sphere, the Swedish approach to arbitrability is permissive, with restrictions largely confined to areas implicating overriding public interest or the rights of third parties. Illustrative examples include disputes concerning the legal status of individuals or legal entities, bankruptcy declarations, the validity of registered intellectual property rights, and rights in rem (with the exception of those rights in rem that may be disposed of out of court once a dispute has arisen). Matters relating to taxation are likewise regarded as non-arbitrable.

Furthermore, certain forms of relief are inherently reserved to state authorities and therefore cannot be granted by an arbitral tribunal. These include:

• the imposition of public law penalties;
• fines payable to public bodies;
• the appointment of officials; and
• comparable forms of state-centred remedies.

Consumer disputes are also subject to specific statutory limitations. While conflicts between a business entity and a consumer concerning goods, services or other products primarily intended for personal use are, in principle, arbitrable, such disputes may only be referred to arbitration if both parties agree after the dispute has materialised.

Under Section 48 of the SAA, the law of the seat governs the arbitration agreement. Accordingly, where Sweden is chosen as the seat of arbitration, Swedish law applies to the arbitration agreement, unless the parties have expressly designated another law. This reflects the Swedish approach that the law applicable to the arbitration agreement is determined by the lex arbitri, which differs from, for example, the English approach, where the governing law of the main contract (lex contractus) is decisive.

Swedish courts consistently respect and enforce arbitration agreements. If proceedings are initiated before a national court despite the existence of such an agreement, the case is generally dismissed upon objection from the opposing party. Only in exceptional circumstances – for example, where the agreement is invalid under general principles of contract law – will a Swedish court refuse to uphold it. Following recent precedents from the Swedish Supreme Court, courts also take a very arbitration-friendly stance regarding the scope of arbitration agreements; it is generally presumed that the parties intended to resolve all disputes relating to a particular contract in a single forum, ie, arbitration.

In practice, arbitration agreements are almost always enforced in Sweden. The judiciary adopts a supportive, non-interventionist approach, reflecting Sweden’s long-standing pro-arbitration tradition and its established role as a leading arbitral seat.

Under Section 3 of the SAA, the arbitration agreement shall be considered as a separate agreement (the rule of separability). Consequently, if a party claims that a contract containing an arbitration clause is invalid, or if the contract is indeed invalid, this has no impact on the arbitration agreement (unless the invalidity directly relates to the arbitration clause as such). The rule of separability prevents parties from evading their arbitration obligations by claiming contractual invalidity for obstructionist purposes.

Section 12 of the SAA grants contracting parties broad autonomy in the appointment of arbitrators. The parties may decide both the number of arbitrators and the method of their appointment. In the absence of such an agreement, the arbitral tribunal shall consist of three arbitrators. In practice, arbitral tribunals in Sweden most commonly comprise three arbitrators, though a sole arbitrator is frequently used in cases of lower value or complexity.

As a general rule, any person with legal capacity may serve as an arbitrator (Section 7 of the SAA). This means that an arbitrator:

• must be at least 18 years of age;
• may not be subject to guardianship; and
• must not have been declared bankrupt.

There is no requirement for Swedish nationality, residence in Sweden or formal legal training. The eligibility criteria are to be observed by the arbitrators themselves, and breach of these requirements does not automatically render the arbitral award invalid.

If the parties’ chosen method for selecting arbitrators fails (including any institutional rules chosen), default procedures apply. Should one of the parties fail to appoint its arbitrator within 30 days of receiving a request to do so, or if the two appointed arbitrators cannot agree on the chair, the district court shall make the appointment upon request by a party (Section 16 of the SAA). In multiparty arbitrations, where several parties on one side are unable to reach agreement on a joint appointment, the court may also intervene to appoint an arbitrator to ensure that the tribunal is properly constituted.

The selection of arbitrators is primarily governed by parties’ agreement (including any institutional rules chosen), and courts will not intervene absent specific circumstances. A district court may appoint an arbitrator only when a party fails to make an appointment within the prescribed timeframe or when co-arbitrators cannot agree on the selection of a chair. The court’s intervention is strictly limited to ensuring the proper constitution of the tribunal and does not extend to substituting the parties’ choices except where procedurally necessary.

The SAA contains general provisions on the challenge and removal of arbitrators. An arbitrator must be both impartial and independent. Where circumstances exist that may give rise to justifiable doubts about an arbitrator’s impartiality or independence, a party may request the arbitrator’s removal. Certain situations are deemed to compromise impartiality or independence under Section 8 of the SAA. Grounds for challenge include circumstances where the arbitrator, or a person closely connected to the arbitrator, is a party to the dispute or may otherwise expect material benefit or detriment from its outcome. Another ground exists where the arbitrator has previously taken a position in the dispute, whether as an expert or otherwise, or has assisted a party in preparing or presenting the case. In line with international practice, Swedish courts, following guidance from the Supreme Court, also refer to the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration when assessing impartiality and independence. Beyond impartiality concerns, an arbitrator may also be removed if unable to perform their duties or if causing unjustified delays in the proceedings.

Pursuant to Section 15 of the SAA, a challenge must be raised within 15 days from the time the party became aware of the relevant circumstances giving rise to the challenge. The tribunal decides on the challenge, unless the parties agree otherwise. If the party is dissatisfied with the tribunal’s decision on the challenge, the party may apply to the district court for removal of the arbitrator. This application must be filed within 30 days of receiving the tribunal’s decision. The arbitral tribunal may continue the proceedings while the district court considers the challenge.

Arbitrators are required to be impartial and independent. This duty applies to all arbitrators, irrespective of how or by whom they are appointed. A potential arbitrator must immediately disclose any circumstances that might give rise to doubts about their impartiality or independence (Section 9 of the SAA). Consistent with international practice, these assessments are commonly guided by the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration. These standards are designed to protect the integrity and legitimacy of the arbitral process.

The arbitral tribunal is authorised to rule on its own jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. Swedish arbitration law recognises the principle of competence-competence pursuant to Section 2(1) of the SAA. A review of jurisdiction is conducted only if a party raises an objection and is limited to the grounds and circumstances invoked by that party. However, regardless of whether an objection is made, the arbitral tribunal is required to consider ex officio whether the dispute is arbitrable under Swedish law.

Swedish courts adopt a restrictive approach to reviewing questions of arbitral jurisdiction. As a main rule, the Court of Appeal may only address jurisdiction in connection with challenge proceedings against a final award (Section 34 of the SAA). An exception exists under Section 2 of the SAA, which allows the Court of Appeal to review a tribunal’s jurisdiction during ongoing proceedings if the tribunal has issued a separate decision affirming its competence. This mechanism provides a procedural safeguard in situations where jurisdiction is genuinely uncertain, giving both parties and the tribunal the option to seek judicial confirmation before the arbitration proceeds to a final award.

In practice, the courts demonstrate considerable reluctance to revisit jurisdictional determinations, even in challenge proceedings. In NJA 2019 p 171, the Supreme Court emphasised that an arbitral tribunal is generally best placed to assess its own jurisdiction, and that judicial review should therefore start from the premise that the tribunal’s interpretation and evaluation of the evidence is correct.

An arbitral tribunal has the authority to rule on its own jurisdiction. Should the arbitral tribunal issue a decision establishing its jurisdiction, any objecting party may apply to the Court of Appeal. Such an application must be filed within 30 days from the date the decision was received from the tribunal. Importantly, the arbitral proceedings are not stayed by this referral; the tribunal may continue with the arbitration pending the court’s decision.

Conversely, if the arbitral tribunal finds that it lacks jurisdiction and dismisses the case, that decision may be challenged to the Court of Appeal within two months from receipt of the award.

If the arbitral tribunal does not render a decision on its own jurisdiction prior to the final award, a party may still raise jurisdictional objections when challenging the final award before the Court of Appeal. However, under Swedish law such objections must have been raised at the earliest possible stage of the arbitration, typically in the party’s first substantive submission. A failure to do so will generally be deemed a waiver.

Under Swedish law, courts are entitled to conduct a full review of jurisdictional issues (de novo). The competence-competence principle in Section 2(1) of the SAA means that arbitral tribunals may rule on their own jurisdiction in the first instance, but their determinations are not binding on the courts. In practice, however, Swedish courts exercise considerable restraint. In NJA 2019 p 171, the Supreme Court held that arbitral tribunals are generally best placed to assess their own jurisdiction, and that the starting point for judicial review should therefore be to assume the tribunal’s interpretation and evaluation of the evidence is correct. This reflects the high threshold for overturning jurisdictional determinations in Sweden.

Swedish law does not clearly distinguish between admissibility and jurisdiction. The prevailing understanding is that admissibility questions – such as procedural preconditions or the timeliness of claims – fall within the discretion of the arbitral tribunal. The courts are generally reluctant to interfere unless the issue directly impacts the validity or enforceability of the final award.

Where litigation is commenced in contravention of a valid arbitration agreement, Swedish courts will dismiss the proceedings upon the request of an objecting party. The objection must be raised at the earliest opportunity: failure to do so results in a waiver of the right to rely upon the arbitration agreement. Under Swedish law, parties to an arbitration agreement are also considered to be under a general contractual duty of loyalty to the purpose of the arbitration agreement. This duty requires the parties to refrain from actions that risk harming the other party’s contractual interest.

When proceedings are commenced abroad in relation to a dispute subject to arbitration in Sweden, Swedish courts cannot issue anti-suit injunctions to restrain the foreign litigation. The courts’ powers are confined to giving effect to the parties’ arbitration agreement within Sweden.

As a general rule, only parties who have agreed to arbitrate, typically by executing an arbitration agreement, are bound by it. Accordingly, arbitral tribunals do not possess general authority to extend jurisdiction to non-signatories or third parties.

There are, however, exceptions under which non-signatories may become bound by an arbitration agreement. Such agreements will ordinarily follow the transfer of contractual rights; thus, an assignee is generally bound in the same manner as the original party. The same principle applies in situations of universal succession, where rights and obligations pass by operation of law, such as through merger or inheritance. Furthermore, arbitration clauses between a debtor and a creditor are typically enforceable against guarantors or other parties jointly liable for the debt. In cases where a third party, non-signatory, tacitly has entered into the main contract (eg, by performing under the main contract), that party is generally considered to have become bound also by the arbitration agreement in the main contract.

These principles apply equally to Swedish and foreign parties. Nevertheless, the threshold for extending jurisdiction over third parties remains high, reflecting the strong emphasis placed upon consent and party autonomy.

Pursuant to Section 25(4) of the SAA, arbitral tribunals in Sweden possess the authority to order interim measures at the request of a party. Such measures may include:

• instructions aimed at preserving the status quo until the dispute is resolved;
• preventing actions that could undermine or prejudice the arbitral proceedings;
• securing assets from which an eventual award could be satisfied; or
• safeguarding evidence relevant to the proceedings.

Applications for interim relief are assessed according to internationally recognised standards. The requesting party must typically demonstrate the following.

• A reasonable possibility of success on the merits – the applicant must demonstrate at least a prima facie case.
• Irreparable harm – the applicant must demonstrate that it will suffer irreparable harm without an interim decision.
• Urgency – the applicant must demonstrate that the matter is so urgent that it cannot await the arbitral tribunal’s final award.
• Proportionality – the applicant’s request for relief must be proportionate to the consequences to be averted.

Swedish law provides a dual system whereby both arbitral tribunals and Swedish courts may grant interim measures. The existence of an arbitration agreement does not preclude a party from applying to court for interim measures (Section 4(3) of the SAA).

Swedish courts may order interim measures regardless of whether the arbitration is seated in Sweden or abroad. Such authority may be exercised before the initiation of arbitral proceedings, whilst the arbitration is ongoing, and even after an award has been rendered, provided enforcement is at issue. Unlike arbitral tribunals, Swedish courts can issue enforceable interim orders, including on an ex parte basis, and may grant any relief that would otherwise be available in ordinary civil litigation, such as freezing orders, attachments, or preservation of evidence.

The SAA contains no provision for the appointment of an emergency arbitrator. A party in need of urgent relief must instead turn to the Swedish courts, which may grant interim measures under Chapter 15 of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure. However, the SCC Rules (as most other institutional rules) permit parties to apply for the appointment of an emergency arbitrator to decide requests for urgent interim measures prior to the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. Emergency arbitrator decisions are binding upon the parties, though their enforceability in practice depends upon the national courts, as neither the New York Convention, the UNCITRAL Model Law, nor the SAA expressly regulates enforcement.

Swedish courts cannot take action in arbitration matters on their own initiative: they require a party to formally request their involvement. When courts do become involved, their role is restricted to handling specific procedural matters that are explicitly outlined in the SAA, such as the appointment and removal of arbitrators in particular circumstances, and granting of interim relief.

An arbitral tribunal may request the parties to provide advance security for its own fees and expenses (Section 37(2) of the SAA). Beyond this, Swedish law does not provide for arbitral tribunals or courts to order security for costs.

The SCC Rules provide an exception. Under exceptional circumstances, an arbitral tribunal may order a claimant or counterclaimant to furnish security for the other party’s costs, though such measures are rare in practice.

Swedish courts may also require a claimant domiciled outside the EU or EEA to provide security for litigation costs. However, Swedish courts apply this provision restrictively, and such orders are rarely granted.

Arbitral procedure in Sweden is governed by the SAA, which applies to both domestic and international arbitrations seated in Sweden. The SAA is founded upon party autonomy and imposes only limited mandatory requirements:

• parties must be treated equally and afforded a reasonable opportunity to present their case (Section 21 of the SAA); and
• a hearing on the merits must be held if requested by a party, unless the parties have agreed otherwise (Section 24 of the SAA).

Beyond these due process guarantees, the tribunal possesses broad discretion to organise the proceedings in consultation with the parties, with the SAA’s provisions serving as default rules where the parties have not agreed otherwise.

Where parties opt for institutional arbitration, the applicable rules supplement the SAA. The SCC Rules contain detailed provisions on case management and efficiency, including:

• a general duty for the parties, tribunal and SCC to conduct proceedings expeditiously (Article 2); and
• a default six-month time limit for rendering the final award, subject to extension by the SCC Board (Articles 42–43).

Arbitral proceedings are initiated when a party submits a written request for arbitration. The request must contain a clear and unconditional demand for arbitration, details of the dispute covered by the arbitration agreement, and the appointment of an arbitrator if the party is entitled to do so (Section 19 of the SAA).

There are no particular procedural steps that are required by law, except for the arbitral tribunal’s rendering of the final award. That said, the claimant typically presents its case first, followed by the respondent’s reply. Both parties may, during the proceedings, amend their claims, raise counterclaims or introduce new facts and evidence, provided that the new material falls within the scope of the arbitration agreement and is not submitted too late (Section 23 of the SAA). The conduct of the proceedings and any time limits are determined by the tribunal, unless the parties have agreed otherwise.

Under the SAA, arbitral tribunals are vested with broad authority to manage proceedings and resolve disputes. They may decide upon their own jurisdiction, determine the seat of arbitration (absent party agreement) and, where the parties have not agreed upon the applicable law, determine the law to be applied. Arbitral tribunals also possess procedural powers, including the ability to assess the admissibility of evidence, order the production of documents, appoint experts (unless both parties object) and issue interim measures.

The central duty of an arbitral tribunal is to adjudicate the dispute in a manner that is impartial, efficient and expeditious, as set out in Section 21 of the SAA. This encompasses an obligation to ensure equality between the parties and provide each side with a fair opportunity to present its case.

Taken together, these powers and duties reflect a balance: tribunals are afforded significant discretion in the conduct of proceedings, but this discretion is tempered by party-autonomy, and strict obligations to maintain fairness, impartiality and efficiency throughout the arbitration.

Under the SAA, there are no formal qualification requirements for legal representatives, and the SCC Rules likewise impose no specific professional or bar admission requirements. Parties are therefore free to appoint representatives of their choice, including lawyers qualified outside the EEA. By contrast, in civil litigation before Swedish courts, Chapter 12 of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure requires that legal representatives be of legal age, not declared bankrupt or under guardianship, and generally suitable in terms of integrity, knowledge and experience.

According to Section 25 of the SAA, the parties are responsible for presenting the evidence upon which they rely. The tribunal possesses no independent powers to collect evidence but may appoint an expert unless both parties object. The tribunal may also reject evidence that is manifestly irrelevant or introduced too late.

The SAA does not impose restrictions upon the type or form of evidence or upon how evidence has been obtained. All evidence is admissible, unless the arbitral tribunal decides otherwise, but irregularities in the way it was obtained may affect its probative value. Written witness statements and expert reports are commonly submitted before the hearing. At the hearing, witnesses and experts are typically examined and cross-examined. Arbitrators cannot administer oaths or impose coercive measures (Section 25(3) of the SAA). If a party wishes a witness or expert to be heard under oath, or to compel the production of documents, the tribunal’s permission is required and the application must be made to a district court (Section 26 of the SAA). Arbitrators are entitled to attend such court proceedings and may pose questions to the witnesses.

At the request of a party, the tribunal may order the other party to produce documents or other evidence that may be relevant to the case and material to its outcome. The framework governing such document production is in material respects very similar to the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration. Under the SCC Rules, this power is expressly set out in Article 31(3). Such orders are not enforceable by the tribunal itself. Judicial assistance may be sought with the tribunal’s consent (Section 26 of the SAA).

Once the tribunal has granted permission, the court’s role is limited solely to assessing whether there is any legal impediment to granting the application; it does not review whether the measure is justified on the merits. Accordingly, a court will only refuse such an application where the requested documents are not identified with sufficient specificity or where disclosure would be unlawful under Swedish law, including the rules on confidentiality and protection of trade secrets.

Arbitral proceedings are characterised by flexibility in evidentiary matters. The SAA does not contain detailed evidentiary rules. Instead, the parties bear primary responsibility for presenting their evidence, and the arbitral tribunal enjoys broad discretion in assessing both admissibility and evidentiary weight. Arbitral tribunals are generally reluctant to engage in independent fact-finding, relying instead upon evidence introduced by the parties.

This contrasts with litigation, where the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure prescribes a more structured evidentiary framework. Arbitration thus allows for greater party autonomy and procedural flexibility.

Pursuant to Section 25(3) of the SAA, arbitral tribunals lack powers of compulsion: they cannot administer oaths, impose fines, or otherwise enforce orders for the production of documents or the attendance of witnesses. Any order issued by the tribunal is therefore not directly enforceable.

If compulsory measures are required, assistance must be sought from the district court, provided the tribunal grants leave under Section 26 of the SAA. This mechanism applies both to parties and to third parties: while arbitrators may request co-operation from either, enforceable orders can only be obtained through the courts.

The SCC Rules do not confer additional coercive powers on tribunals, but SCC tribunals may rely on the procedure in Section 26 of the SAA to secure judicial assistance.

The SAA does not contain provisions imposing confidentiality upon the parties. Arbitral proceedings in Sweden are private in the sense that third parties have no right to attend hearings or access case materials, but there is no statutory duty of confidentiality between the parties. Confidentiality must therefore be based upon agreement.

Arbitrators are generally considered bound by confidentiality as part of their mandate under the SAA, regardless of specific party agreement. Members of the Swedish Bar Association acting as counsel are also subject to professional secrecy under the Bar Association’s Code of Professional Conduct.

Information from arbitral proceedings may be used in subsequent court proceedings. Under the SAA, this may include:

• challenge proceedings (Sections 34–36);
• enforcement proceedings (Sections 53–60); or
• when an award is invoked as res judicata (Section 27).

Once filed in Swedish courts, documents from the arbitration, including the award, generally become public under the principle of access to official records.

According to Section 31 of the SAA, an arbitral award must be in writing and signed by the arbitrators. The award is valid if signed by a majority of the tribunal, provided that the reason for any missing signature is stated. The parties may also agree that only the chairperson shall sign. Unless otherwise agreed, all arbitrators are expected to sign, even if they dissent from the majority decision.

The SAA does not require the tribunal to provide reasons for its decision. However, reasoned awards are normally given in practice. The award must contain an operative part setting out the tribunal’s conclusions, which may include:

• declaratory relief;
• orders for payment;
• interest; or
• specific performance (Section 27 of the SAA).

The SAA does not impose a statutory time limit for rendering the award. The parties may, however, agree upon a deadline, which will then be binding upon the tribunal. Arbitrators are under a general duty to conduct proceedings without undue delay (Section 21 of the SAA).

Under the SCC Rules, the final award must be rendered within six months from the date the case is referred to the tribunal. The SCC Board may grant extensions, normally of short duration and only upon a reasoned request.

Arbitral tribunals may generally award the same types of remedies as Swedish courts, including:

• declaratory relief;
• orders for payment;
• interest; and
• specific performance (in appropriate cases).

However, arbitral tribunals may not grant remedies that contravene mandatory provisions of Swedish law. An award ordering a party to perform an unlawful act, or otherwise conflicting with fundamental principles of Swedish law, would be invalid under Section 33 of the SAA.

Punitive damages are not available under Swedish law. The prevailing view is that such damages would be contrary to Swedish public policy, which adheres to compensatory rather than punitive principles. While there is no direct precedent regarding enforcement of punitive damages awarded in foreign arbitrations, it is widely recognised that enforcement would be refused in Sweden on public policy grounds.

Arbitral tribunals may award interest, but the basis for such an award is determined by the substantive law governing the contract. If Swedish law applies, this will typically be under the Swedish Interest Act, whereas if another law governs, the rules of that system will apply.

With respect to costs, Section 42 of the SAA provides that, upon request of a party, the arbitral tribunal shall determine the allocation of the costs of the arbitration. The general rule is that costs follow the event, meaning that the losing party is ordered to compensate the prevailing party. Recoverable costs include:

• arbitrators’ fees and expenses;
• legal counsel fees;
• costs for the party’s own work; and
• costs relating to evidence, such as experts.

The tribunal must, however, assess the reasonableness of the costs claimed.

The parties may agree on a different allocation of costs but, in the absence of such agreement, the prevailing practice is that the losing party bears the full costs of the arbitration, including the winning party’s costs.

Arbitral awards are final and cannot be appealed on the merits. The SAA does not provide for a general right of appeal.

Parties do, however, have recourse through challenge proceedings. Under Section 33 of the SAA, an award is invalid if the matter is not arbitrable under Swedish law or if the award is contrary to Swedish public policy. In addition, under Section 34 of the SAA, an award may be set aside if:

• there was no valid arbitration agreement;
• the tribunal exceeded its mandate;
• the arbitration was conducted in Sweden contrary to the parties’ agreement;
• an arbitrator was improperly appointed or disqualified; or
• a procedural error occurred that likely affected the outcome.

Challenge proceedings must be brought before the competent court of appeal within two months of receipt of the award. If the seat of arbitration has not been stated in the award, the action shall be brought before the Svea Court of Appeal. The court’s review is limited to statutory grounds.

As arbitral awards are not subject to appeal on the merits, the SAA does not recognise substantive appeals. The parties may, however, agree on a contractual right to appeal to a second arbitral tribunal. Such agreements are rare in practice but remain permissible.

Furthermore, where neither party is domiciled nor has its place of business in Sweden, and the dispute arises out of a commercial relationship, the parties may, by explicit written agreement, restrict or waive the statutory grounds for setting aside an award. However, challenges based on invalidity under the SAA cannot be waived.

Arbitral awards are final and not subject to review on the merits. Judicial review is limited to the specific statutory grounds for challenge under Sections 33 and 34 of the SAA. The courts assess only whether any of these grounds are met, such as:

• invalidity;
• lack of jurisdiction;
• excess of mandate; or
• serious procedural errors.

The merits of the dispute, including the tribunal’s assessment of facts or application of substantive law, are not subject to review. The standard of judicial review is therefore narrow and confined to procedural and jurisdictional issues.

Sweden adopted the New York Convention and ratified it without reservations. The Convention entered into force in Sweden on 27 April 1972 and is fully incorporated into Swedish law.

Arbitral awards are enforceable in the same manner as judgments of Swedish courts. Applications for enforcement are made directly to the Swedish Enforcement Authority, which executes the award.

Foreign arbitral awards are also enforceable in Sweden, but the process involves two stages. First, an application for recognition and enforcement must be submitted to the Svea Court of Appeal (Section 56 of the SAA), which reviews the award to ensure that it does not contravene Swedish public policy and that no valid grounds for refusal are present under the SAA. The opposing party must be given the opportunity to raise any objections (Section 57 of the SAA). Only after the Svea Court of Appeal grants recognition may the award be enforced through the Enforcement Authority. If the Svea Court of Appeal grants the application for enforcement, the arbitral award becomes enforceable in Sweden in the same manner as a final and binding judgment of a competent Swedish court. The decision of the Court of Appeal may be appealed to the Supreme Court.

Swedish courts take an arbitration-friendly approach and regularly recognise and enforce foreign arbitral awards. An arbitral award rendered by a tribunal seated outside Sweden is classified as a foreign award and cannot be enforced until it has been subject to an exequatur procedure.

This procedure ensures that there are no obstacles to recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award pursuant to Sections 54 and 55 of the SAA. The exceptions set out in these provisions are exhaustive, and the court will not review any other aspects of the award.

Section 54 of the SAA sets out five exceptions under which a foreign arbitral award may not be recognised and enforced in Sweden. These exceptions are as follows:

• if the signatory of the arbitration agreement lacked authority or the arbitration agreement is invalid;
• if due process has been violated;
• if the arbitral tribunal exceeded its mandate;
• if the arbitrators were improperly appointed; or
• if the award is not binding or enforceable in the country where it was rendered.

The Svea Court of Appeal will only examine whether an exception applies if the respondent has made a specific objection to that effect. The respondent bears the burden of proof to show that such an exception should apply, except where the respondent denies having entered into an arbitration agreement, in which case the burden of proof is reversed. As a consequence of the restrictive grounds for refusal, the respondent’s burden of proof and the general pro-enforcement approach adopted by Swedish courts, there are very few Swedish cases in which enforcement has been refused on grounds such as due process violations or alleged excess of mandate by the arbitral tribunal.

Section 55 of the SAA sets out additional exceptions that the court must consider ex officio. Under this provision, the award shall not be recognised or enforced if the court finds:

• that the award includes a determination of issues that are not arbitrable under Swedish law; or
• that enforcement would be contrary to Swedish public policy.

Generally, disputes that affect third-party interests are not arbitrable under Swedish law. Swedish courts apply a restrictive interpretation of the public policy exception under the New York Convention. Examples of circumstances where the public policy exception may apply include situations where an arbitral award has been rendered as a result of threats or bribes or where claims have been based upon criminal acts. Due to this restrictive application of public policy as an exception, it is very rare for courts to refuse recognition and enforcement on these grounds.

The SAA does not provide for class action or group arbitration. Arbitration under the SAA is based on consent, and proceedings are limited to parties bound by an arbitration agreement. Representative or collective claims are therefore not available in arbitration.

Multiparty arbitrations are possible. Section 14(3) of the SAA provides that if arbitration is initiated against several respondents who fail to jointly appoint an arbitrator, the district court will appoint the entire tribunal and discharge any arbitrator already appointed. This provision ensures that proceedings can continue even where respondents cannot co-operate in the appointment process.

Consolidation of separate proceedings is possible under Section 23a of the SAA, but only with the consent of all parties. The SCC Rules supplement this framework by providing mechanisms for joinder of additional parties (Article 13), determination of claims under multiple contracts in a single arbitration (Article 14), and consolidation of proceedings (Article 15). These mechanisms promote procedural efficiency but do not permit class action or group arbitration.

In Sweden, ethical codes and professional standards apply primarily to arbitrators rather than legal representatives. Pursuant to Section 8 of the SAA, an arbitrator must be impartial and, upon request of a party, shall be discharged if there is any circumstance that may diminish confidence in the arbitrator’s impartiality. A prospective arbitrator must immediately disclose any circumstance that could give rise to doubts about impartiality, and arbitrators must conduct proceedings in an impartial, efficient and expeditious manner (Section 21 of the SAA). The SAA further provides that any agreement on arbitrators’ fees not concluded with the parties jointly is void and that arbitrators may not withhold the award pending payment of compensation (Sections 39–40 of the SAA). The SCC Rules complement these requirements by mandating that arbitrators be impartial and independent and by requiring disclosure of any circumstances that may give rise to justifiable doubts.

The SAA does not establish specific ethical rules for counsel appearing in arbitration. However, members of the Swedish Bar Association are bound by the Bar Association’s Code of Professional Conduct. These rules are applied and enforced by the Bar Association, with appeals from disciplinary matters brought before the Supreme Court. In practice, legal representatives in Swedish arbitration proceedings are frequently members of the Bar Association.

Third-party funding is not regulated under the SAA, and there are no legal obstacles to its use in Swedish arbitration proceedings. The SCC has adopted policies that encourage parties to disclose the involvement of any third party with a financial interest in the outcome of the dispute. Appointed and prospective arbitrators must also take into account the existence and identity of a funder when assessing their impartiality and independence.

The SAA permits consolidation of arbitral proceedings only with the consent of all parties concerned (Section 23a of the SAA). Swedish courts have no power to order consolidation in the absence of such agreement.

The SCC Rules contain more detailed consolidation provisions. Under Article 15, the SCC Board may consolidate separate proceedings into a single arbitration where:

• the parties agree;
• all claims are made under the same arbitration agreement; or
• the claims are made under multiple arbitration agreements that are compatible and arise out of the same legal relationship.

The SCC Rules also provide for joinder of additional parties under Article 13 and determination of claims under multiple contracts in a single arbitration under Article 14, subject to certain conditions.

Consolidation is therefore possible in Sweden, but it requires either unanimous party consent under the SAA or reliance on institutional rules such as those of the SCC, which provide more comprehensive mechanisms for consolidation and joinder.

As a general rule, only parties who have agreed to arbitrate, typically by executing an arbitration agreement, are bound by it. Accordingly, arbitral tribunals do not possess general authority to extend jurisdiction to non-signatories or third parties.

There are, however, exceptions under which non-signatories may become bound by an arbitration agreement. Such agreements will ordinarily follow the transfer of contractual rights; thus, an assignee is generally bound in the same manner as the original party. The same principle applies in situations of universal succession, where rights and obligations pass by operation of law, such as through merger or inheritance. Furthermore, arbitration clauses between a debtor and a creditor are typically enforceable against guarantors or other parties jointly liable for the debt. In cases where a third party, non-signatory, tacitly has entered into the main contract (eg, by performing under the main contract), that party is generally considered to have become bound also by the arbitration agreement in the main contract.

These principles apply equally to Swedish and foreign parties. Nevertheless, the threshold for extending jurisdiction over third parties remains high, reflecting the strong emphasis placed upon consent and party autonomy.