Verkställighet avsäkerhetsåtgärder i skiljeförfaranden : Reflektioner kring Sverige som attraktivt skiljeförfarandeland i en internationell kontext

Sammanfattning: During an arbitration, a party may need to request the arbitral tribunal to order interim measuresto secure a meaningful award. However, the parties may face issues relating to enforceabilityand hence the effectiveness of the arbitral tribunal’s interim decision. If the arbitral tribunal isseated in Sweden, under the current Swedish Arbitration Act (SAA), a decision on interimmeasures is not enforceable in the form of an order. This raises the issue whether such a decisioncould be made enforceable if issued in the form of an arbitral award. The SAA is currently undergoing a revision with the aim to increase the attractiveness ofSwedish arbitration, for both Swedish and foreign parties. The Government Commission(Commission) proposed in its report in 2015 that an express legislative provision be introducedspecifically empowering an arbitral tribunal to order an interim measure in the form of an orderor an award. This would be consistent with relevant Arbitral Rules. A decision in form of anaward would potentially be enforceable. The Government decided not to follow theCommission’s proposal in the proposed legislation referred to the Law Council on Legislation.The Commission implied that interim measures may be enforceable in Sweden, if made in theform of an award. Through the use of a legal dogmatic and legal analytical method this thesis concludes that thereis an uncertainty as to whether interim measures, in the form of an award, can be enforced inSweden. Parties can probably give the arbitral tribunal such authority to grant interim measuresthat are final and binding in character, if this is provided for in their arbitration agreement. Forexample, parties could vest the arbitral tribunal with such power by referring to arbitration rulesthat provide for such interim relief, as is provided in SCC and ICC Arbitral Rules. It is alsoconcluded that the enforceability depends on whether the award was rendered by a tribunalsitting in/outside of Sweden. The Swedish Supreme Court has stated that “award” within themeaning of the New York Convention (NYC) should, as a rule, be construed according to thelaw of the seat of the arbitration. This may allow for enforcement of interim measures in theform of an award. However, due to the general, but not conclusive, view that the NYC does notapply to interim measures, no certain conclusions can be made. Furthermore, it is argued, because of this ambiguity, that Sweden fails to offer parties andarbitrators a modern and effective arbitral regime, which may hamper Sweden’s ambitions inattracting foreign parties to arbitrate in Sweden. Therefore, Sweden should introduce apossibility for the arbitral tribunal to grant enforceable interim measures.