The court decisions available on this website interpret and apply the New York Convention. These court decisions are published in the Yearbook Commercial Arbitration since its Volume I (1976).
For instructions on how to search for court decisions per topic and per country in this website, please refer to our helpful access guide here.
Högsta Domstolen, 19 June 2018
Adelina Gross AB v Promlinus D.O.O. Prokuplje
Högsta Domstolen, 19 June 2018
Adelina Gross AB v Promlinus D.O.O. Prokuplje
The court discusses the conditions under which a party may be estopped from raising a ground for refusal of enforcement under the Convention or has waived the right to raise it.
Högsta Domstolen, 4 May 2018
Belaya ptitsa-Kursk v. Robot Grader AB
Högsta Domstolen, 4 May 2018
Belaya ptitsa-Kursk v. Robot Grader AB
Due process: The court discusses what are to be considered proper time limits and notice periods that fulfill the requirement that the party opposing recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award was extended due process.
Högsta Domstolen, 4 May 2018
J. O. P. v. Smart Board Production AB
Högsta Domstolen, 4 May 2018
J. O. P. v. Smart Board Production AB
Public policy: The court discusses cases in which the subject matter of the award was not arbitrable in the enforcement State on public policy grounds.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
Högsta Domstolen, 30 March 2017
Industrial Consulting and Trading International J-E Johansson AB v.
OOO Juriditjeskaja Kompanija
Högsta Domstolen, 30 March 2017
Industrial Consulting and Trading International J-E Johansson AB v.
OOO Juriditjeskaja Kompanija
The court discusses the determination and relevance of the place where the award was made (in a foreign State or another contracting State.
The court discusses the general conditions the Convention imposes on a petitioner for seeking recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award – namely, the submission of the original arbitration agreement or arbitral award or a certified copy thereof – and examines in general whether these conditions were complied in the case at issue.
Svea Hovrätt, Department 02, 22 November 2013
and Högsta Domstolen, 2 June 2015
Subway International B.V. v. E
Svea Hovrätt, Department 02, 22 November 2013
and Högsta Domstolen, 2 June 2015
Subway International B.V. v. E
Due process: The court discusses what are to be considered proper time limits and notice periods that fulfill the requirement that the party opposing recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award was extended due process.
Högsta Domstolen, 17 June 2015
H.K. with the stated company name of ATB Tjänst v. Finants
Collect OÜ
Högsta Domstolen, 17 June 2015
H.K. with the stated company name of ATB Tjänst v. Finants
Collect OÜ
The court discusses issues relating to the identity of the party against whom enforcement of the arbitral award is sought, including: piercing of the corporate veil, succession, assignment, State or State entity, group of companies, agent or principal, etc. For the related defenses to enforcement, see Art. V(1)(a).
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
Högsta Domstolen, 18 March 2014
The estate of Juan Aramendia Rosas v. NCC International Aktiebolag
Högsta Domstolen, 18 March 2014
The estate of Juan Aramendia Rosas v. NCC International Aktiebolag
The court discusses issues relating to the identity of the party against whom enforcement of the arbitral award is sought, including: piercing of the corporate veil, succession, assignment, State or State entity, group of companies, agent or principal, etc. For the related defenses to enforcement, see Art. V(1)(a).
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
Svea Hovrätt, Department 02, 20 September 2013
Subway International B.V. v. B
Svea Hovrätt, Department 02, 20 September 2013
Subway International B.V. v. B
Due process: The court discusses what are to be considered proper time limits and notice periods that fulfill the requirement that the party opposing recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award was extended due process.
Sweden 8. Högsta Domstolen, 12 November 2010
The court discusses whether a declaratory judgment on the validity of the arbitration agreement is available under the Convention.
Sweden 7. Högsta Domstolen, 16 April 2010
Due process: The court discusses what constitutes “proper notice” of the appointment of the arbitrators or of the arbitration proceedings.
Sweden 6. Svea Court of Appeal, 7 September 2001
Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: The court discusses the law applicable to the validity of the arbitration agreement at the enforcement stage.
Sweden 5. Svea Court of Appeal, 21 March 2001
The court discusses general questions relating to the interpretation of the Convention as an international treaty, also in respect of the methods of interpretation laid down in the 1969 Vienna Convention; the relationship between the New York Convention and the UNCITRAL Model Law and Recommendation 2006.
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
Sweden 4. Supreme Court, 23 November 1992
The court discusses the conditions for granting adjournment of a proceeding relating to the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, and the court’s discretionary power to do so, as well the determination of “suitable security” and the power to request it.
Sweden 3. Supreme Court, 18 April 1989
Award not binding, suspended or set aside: The court discusses the difference between the exclusive jurisdiction to set aside an award (primary jurisdiction), which belongs to the courts of the country of origin of the award, and the jurisdiction of all other courts to recognize and enforce the award (secondary jurisdiction); issues relating to the determination of the “competent authority”; and whether an award that has been set aside in the country of origin can be enforced in another State under the Convention.
Sweden 2. Svea Court of Appeal, 18 June 1980
The court discusses issues relating to the quality of the parties, as physical or legal persons against whom enforcement of an arbitral award is sought, including the incapacity of a State to enter into an arbitration agreement, and questions relating to sovereign immunity. For the related defenses to enforcement, see Art. V(1)(a).
Public policy: The court discusses cases in which the subject matter of the award was not arbitrable in the enforcement State on public policy grounds.
Sweden 1. Supreme Court, 13 August 1979 and Svea Court of Appeal, 13 December 1978
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
Award not binding, suspended or set aside: The court discusses the meaning of an award having been “suspended” in the country of origin, including when the award has been suspended by operation of law rather than by a court decision.
The court discusses the conditions for granting adjournment of a proceeding relating to the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, and the court’s discretionary power to do so, as well the determination of “suitable security” and the power to request it.