|TABLE OF CONTENTS:|
Amici Curiae in Investment Treaty Arbitrations: Authority and Procedural Fairness
Boris Kasolowsky and Caroline Harvey
Navigating in the Archipelago of Swedish Due Process Safeguards: A Sea Chart indicating a Few Treacherous Reefs
Obtaining Revision of "Swiss" International Arbital Awards: Whence after Thalès?
Dr. Charles Poncet
Manifest Lack of Jurisdiction? A Selection of Decisions of the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce concerning the Prima Facie Existence of an Arbitration Agreement (2005-2009)
David Ramsjö and Siri Strömberg
Preventing the Multiple and Concurrent Arbitration Proceedings: Waiver Clauses
Waiving the Right to Arbitrate by Initiating Court Proceedings
Bengt-Åke Johnsson and Ola Nilsson
COURT DECISIONS ON ARBITRATION
Supreme Court of Sweden Decision in Case No: Ö 13-09 on April 16, 2010 133
Application seeking recognition and enforcement of a foreign award.
Service of a request for arbitration at an address mentioned in the parties'
contract but which was no longer valid at the time of service. Respondent
not otherwise notified of the arbitration proceedings' existence. Whether
respondent was duly notified of arbitration proceedings' existence within
the meaning of Section 54 Subsection 2 of the Swedish Arbitration Act.
Supreme Court of Sweden Decision in Case No: B 156-09 on
June 9, 2010"Korsnäs AB vs. AB Fortum Värme Samägt Med
Stockholms Stad" 139
Whether one of the arbitrators in the arbitral tribunal did not meet the
impartiality requirements imposed by the Swedish Arbitration Act. Whether
the arbitrator in question had such ties to the law firm representing the
respondent so as to unauthorise him from participating in the proceedings.
Question of to which extent an arbitrator can accept appointments as
arbitrator by the same law firm without creating the impression of having
attachments to the law firm.
Swedish Svea Court of Appeal in Case No: T 4548-08 on December
12, 2009 "Systembolaget AB VS. V&S Vin & Sprit AB" 149
Whether the Arbitral Tribunal took a decision based on circumstances
that had not been invoked by the parties and, consequently, the Arbitral
Tribunal has exceeded its mandate (Section 34, first paragraph, subsection
(2) of the Swedish Arbitration Act).