Påståendedoktrinens innebörd och tillämpning i skiljemannarätten

A valid arbitration agreement constitutes a bar to court proceedings as well as a prerequisite for arbitral proceedings. In NJA 2008 p. 406 and NJA 2012 p. 183, the Swedish Supreme Court applied the so-called doctrine of assertion with respect to the issue of whether a dispute should be settled by arbitration or litigation. Prior to these judgments, it was uncertain if the doctrine of assertion was applicable regarding this issue. The purpose of the essay is to examine the meaning of the doctrine and how it should be applied based on NJA 2008 p. 406 and NJA 2012 p. 183.In essence, the following conclusions are drawn from the judgments. As a starting point, it is essential to distinguish between the question of whether there is a valid arbitration agreement between the parties, the question of which legal relationships the arbitration agreement covers and the question of which circumstances the assessment of the issue of jurisdiction should be based on. The questions are all significant to the issue of whether a dispute should be settled by arbitration or litigation, but according to the Supreme Court, the doctrine of assertion should only be applied with respect to the last question. Thus, when an arbitral tribunal tries its own jurisdiction, it should base its assessment on the circumstances referred to by the party which requested the arbitration. This is also the case when a claimant brings an action before a court and the respondent objects to the jurisdiction of the court by invoking an arbitration agreement. In accordance with the doctrine of assertion, the court should base its assessment of the issue of jurisdiction on the circumstances which the claimant has referred to. 

Senaste sökningar:

© 2024 Allauppsatser.se | Nyheter Sidkarta