瑞典仲裁的新案件：斯韦亚上诉法院驳回仲裁庭超出管辖权的请求

更新时间：2018-06-19 11:38:19  张振安 临时仲裁ADA 编辑：lianluobu  点击次数：1330次

瑞典仲裁最近发布的一项判决中，斯韦亚上诉法院（Svea Court of Appeal）驳回了当事人就仲裁裁决提起的异议，认为仲裁庭没有超出授权范围。

仲裁中的被申请人（异议方）根据《瑞典仲裁法》第34条第2项对仲裁裁决提起了异议，请求上诉法院撤销仲裁裁决的第67段、第71段及第73段的部分内容。异议方主张，仲裁庭根据当事人未提及的情况作出裁决，超出了授权范围。

在另一主张中，异议方争论仲裁中存在程序错误，裁决的部分内容应根据瑞典仲裁法第34条第6项撤销。当事人主张仲裁庭因未告知异议方其已考虑了某些事实而剥夺了该方对那些法律事实进行辩论的权利。异议方主张这已构成了严重的程序性错误，并将实质性地影响仲裁结果。

仲裁的申请人主张仲裁庭并未基于双方未提及的任何事实作出裁决，即便如此，也并不影响仲裁结果。

法院驳回了全部异议。认为：如果仲裁庭基于当事人未提及的事实作出裁决，其一般应被视为超出授权范围。然而，法院指出因仲裁庭基于当事人未提及的事实作出裁决而需撤销该裁决时，这些事实必须是与当事人未提及的法律事实有关。法院认为本案中仲裁庭考虑的相关事实并不构成争议案件中的法律事实。取而代之的是，该情况属于证明当事人对放弃租金达成一致的证据事实。鉴于该事实属于证据事实，仲裁庭无义务告知当事人其有意考虑他们。因此，仲裁庭并未超出授权范围，另外也未发生程序性错误，该请求被予以了驳回。

 

[英文原文]

New on Swedish Arbitration Portal: Svea Court of Appeal dismisses claims that tribunal exceeded mandate

In a decision recently published on the Arbitration Portal the Svea Court of Appeal dismissed a party’s challenge to the arbitral award, finding that the tribunal had not exceeded its mandate by basing its decision on circumstances not referenced by the parties.

Summary:The Respondent to the arbitration (challenging party) challenged the award under item 2 of Section 34 of the Swedish Arbitration Act, requesting that the Court of Appeal annul paragraphs 67, 71 and part of paragraph 73 of the arbitral award.   The challenging party argued that the tribunal exceeded its mandate by basing its decision on circumstances which had not been referenced by the parties.

In the alternative the challenging party argued that a procedural error occurred in the arbitration and parts of the award should be set aside pursuant to item 6 of Section 34 of the Swedish Arbitration Act.  The party claimed that the tribunal committed a procedural error by not informing the challenging party that it had taken certain circumstances into account, thereby depriving the party of its right to argue those legal facts.  The challenging party argued that this constituted a material procedural error that materially affected the outcome of the arbitration. 

The Claimant to the arbitration claimed that the tribunal did not base its decision on any circumstance which had not been referenced by a party and that even if it had done so, it would not have affected the outcome of the arbitration.

The Court dismissed the challenge in its entirety. The Court noted that if an arbitrator bases his/her decision on a circumstance which has not been involved by a party, he/she shall generally be considered to have exceeded his/her mandate.  However, the Court noted that for an award to be annulled on the ground that the tribunal based its decision on circumstances not referenced by the parties, these circumstances must relate to legal facts not invoked by a party. The Court found in this case that the relevant circumstances taken into account by the tribunal did not constitute legal facts in the action at issue. Instead the circumstances were evidentiary circumstances in support of the parties having agreed on a waiver of the rent.  As the circumstances were evidentiary facts the arbitral tribunal was not obliged to inform the party that it intended to take them into account. 

Therefore the tribunal did not exceed its mandate,additionally no procedural error occurred and the claim was dismissed.

By SCC.