Sweden

Commercial litigation in Sweden is handled by the general courts: the district courts (tingsrätt), the courts of appeal (hovrätt), and the Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen). There are 48 district courts and six courts of appeal in Sweden. Typically, a judgment must be appealed within three weeks of its delivery. Leave to appeal is generally required for the courts of appeal and always required to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court only hears cases that are of precedential value.

Challenges to arbitral awards are brought directly before the Svea Court of Appeal in Stockholm, which has exclusive jurisdiction in such matters.

Further, while there are no specialised “commercial courts”, the Stockholm District Court handles many major commercial disputes due to parties’ registered offices or the inclusion of jurisdiction clauses in agreements.

The principal rules governing civil procedure are set out in the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure (rättegångsbalken), which establishes the overall framework for conducting civil litigation in Sweden. Swedish civil procedure is based on the following fundamental principles:

• the principle of oral proceedings, meaning that the main hearing is conducted orally;
• the principle of concentration, meaning that evidence and arguments are to be presented in one continuous hearing;
• the principle of immediacy, meaning that the judgment may only be based on what is presented at the hearing; and
• the principle of publicity, meaning that hearings are generally open to the public.

The provisions of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure are often applied analogously in domestic arbitral proceedings when there are no specific rules in either the Swedish Arbitration Act (lag om skiljeförfarande) or the rules of a particular arbitration institution.

Certain commercial areas, such as competition, insolvency, and intellectual property, are governed by sector-specific statutes that operate alongside the general procedural framework.

Generally, there are no statutory pre-action requirements before commencing litigation in Sweden. However, under the rules of the Swedish Bar Association (Advokatsamfundet), members of the association are generally expected to give the opposing party a reasonable opportunity to respond or to settle the claim before filing a lawsuit. Failure to do so does not affect the court’s examination of the merits, but it may be considered when determining the allocation of litigation costs.

In addition to arbitration under the Swedish Arbitration Act, and the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC) Rules, several alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods are available in Sweden.

The principal arbitration institute in Sweden is the SCC Arbitration Institute. It offers standard and expedited arbitration, mediation, and SCC Express. The latter is a voluntary and confidential process where a neutral expert provides a non-binding opinion on a dispute within three weeks for a fixed fee. The SCC is internationally recognised and frequently chosen in cross-border commercial contracts, and its rules operate in close conjunction with the Swedish Arbitration Act.

In court proceedings, Swedish judges have a procedural duty to facilitate settlement discussions. At the preparatory (case management) hearing, the court is generally expected to consider whether a settlement between the parties is feasible and will often encourage and assist discussions. This judicial encouragement of settlement reflects the general policy in Swedish civil procedure to resolve disputes efficiently and amicably whenever possible.

Outside the court system, mediation plays an important role. It is regulated by the Act on Mediation in Certain Private Law Disputes (lag om medling i vissa privaträttsliga tvister). The act implements the EU Mediation Directive (2008/52/EC) and includes provisions concerning mediator confidentiality, the possibility to suspend prescription periods during mediation, and the enforceability of settlement agreements reached during mediation. Private mediation (outside of the statutory regime) is also commonly used, often pursuant to contractual mediation clauses. In addition, mediation may take place under the SCC Mediation Rules (2025), which provide a structured and flexible framework for voluntary, confidential settlement discussions administered by the SCC.

Finally, expert determination provides another contract-based mechanism for resolving specific technical or valuation issues in complex commercial disputes. An independent expert is appointed to assess the matter based on professional expertise rather than through an adversarial process. The determination may be binding or non-binding depending on the parties’ agreement and is often used in sectors such as construction, energy, and intellectual property.

The time for a civil or commercial case to reach trial depends largely on the complexity of the dispute. Straightforward cases typically proceed to trial within 12–18 months from filing in a district court, while large or complex commercial cases may take several years, depending on factors such as court workload, expert evidence, and procedural motions. These time frames refer to the period leading up to the main hearing in the district courts. If the judgment is appealed, additional time must be allowed for the leave to appeal process, and proceedings before the court of appeal generally take longer than those before the district courts.

The procedural design of Swedish litigation partly explains these timeframes. Swedish procedure emphasises oral and concentrated hearings, meaning that most preparation and evidentiary work is completed before trial dates are set. Once hearings begin, they are normally continuous and efficiently conducted, allowing the court to reach judgment soon after the conclusion of the main hearing.

In contrast to the extensive discovery obligations typical of common law jurisdictions, particularly the United States, Sweden applies a more restricted and party-driven approach to document production under the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure. Rather than a broad duty of disclosure, Swedish law places the primary responsibility for evidence on the parties themselves.

Each party is expected to present the evidence on which it intends to rely. There is no general duty to disclose all relevant material, including documents that may be adverse to one’s own case. In other words, parties are not required to volunteer unhelpful documents.

Under Chapter 38 of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure, a party may request that the court order the opposing party, or, in some cases, a third party, to produce specific documents. To succeed, the requesting party must:

• identify the document with reasonable precision; and
• demonstrate that it is likely relevant as evidence.

The court exercises discretion when granting such orders, balancing relevance, necessity, and confidentiality interests.

The result is a focused and controlled process: document production is request-driven, not exploratory, and so-called “fishing expeditions” are not permitted.

Witnesses are legally obliged to attend trial and testify. Failure to do so may result in fines, liability for costs, or, in exceptional cases, enforcement by the police. Testimony must generally be given orally at the main hearing: as a main rule, written statements are not accepted under the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure. This approach reflects the fundamental procedural principles of orality and concentration.

Witnesses may be placed under oath, and false testimony constitutes perjury. Certain exemptions apply. Close relatives of a party are not obliged to testify, and certain professionals bound by confidentiality, such as lawyers, doctors, or priests, may not testify on matters covered by professional privilege unless that privilege has been validly waived.

Once a witness has been called, examination follows a structured process. The party who has called the witness conducts the examination in chief, after which the opposing party has the right to cross-examine. The court may also ask clarifying questions. While cross-examination in Sweden is typically less adversarial than in common law systems, it nonetheless serves as an important means of testing a witness’s credibility and reliability.

In Swedish civil litigation, the allocation of costs follows the “loser-pays” principle. Under the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure, the losing party must reimburse the prevailing party for reasonable and proportionate litigation costs, including court fees, attorneys’ fees, and other necessary expenses.

The court has discretion to assess reasonableness and may reduce or apportion costs if both parties partly succeed, or if claimed costs are excessive. It may also depart from the loser-pays rule in exceptional cases, such as matters of public interest or where the losing party had strong grounds for bringing the case.

In addition, a party’s conduct during proceedings can affect cost allocation. A party that acts negligently or causes unnecessary costs — such as by missing hearings or making late submissions — may be ordered to bear those costs regardless of the outcome. If the case is settled, each party generally bears its own costs unless one party’s conduct clearly caused unnecessary litigation.

Several forms of interim remedies are available for Swedish courts, the principal being injunctions and attachment orders. These measures are exceptional and discretionary and will only be granted where the applicant demonstrates both urgency and probable grounds for the underlying claim. As a general rule, the applicant must also provide security for potential damages that the measure might cause the opposing party. The court conducts a balancing test, granting interim relief only where the applicant’s need for protection clearly outweighs the burden or risk imposed on the respondent.

The most common form of interim relief is the injunction, which may compel or restrain certain conduct temporarily, pending final judgment. It is frequently used in intellectual property disputes, unfair competition cases, and contractual matters.

Another key remedy is attachment, allowing the court to secure a claimant’s interests by seizing or freezing the defendant’s assets pending judgment. This ensures that sufficient property remains available for enforcement if the claim ultimately succeeds.

An interim order remains in force until the court decides otherwise, provided that the applicant pursues the main claim within 30 days from the date the interim order was given. Enforcement of interim orders is carried out by the Swedish Enforcement Authority (Kronofogden).

Swedish courts adopt an arbitration-friendly approach and uphold valid arbitration agreements. Where a dispute is subject to arbitration, the courts will generally decline jurisdiction and may, upon request, assist the arbitral process by granting interim measures in support of the proceedings (see further, below). Courts also apply a restrictive standard when reviewing or setting aside arbitral awards, thereby reinforcing the finality and autonomy of arbitration in Sweden.

Challenges to arbitral awards are brought directly before the Svea Court of Appeal in Stockholm, which has exclusive jurisdiction and extensive experience in arbitration matters. This concentration of jurisdiction has contributed to a consistent and sophisticated body of case law, further enhancing Sweden’s reputation as a leading arbitration venue.

Arbitration in Sweden is governed by the Swedish Arbitration Act (lag om skiljeförfarande), which is inspired by the UNCITRAL Model Law. Following the 2019 amendments, the Act largely mirrors the Model Law in both structure and substance, though it retains certain distinctive features. The Act applies to both domestic and international arbitrations where the seat of arbitration is in Sweden, and its scope is not limited to commercial disputes of an international character.

Several substantive differences remain. Unlike the UNCITRAL Model Law, the Swedish Arbitration Act does not require the arbitration agreement to be in writing. It also contains specific provisions on the appointment and qualification of arbitrators: arbitrators must have full legal capacity but need not be Swedish citizens. Where the parties fail to agree on the appointment of arbitrators, a Swedish district court may, upon request, appoint the arbitral tribunal. In institutional arbitrations, such as those conducted under the SCC Arbitration Rules, the SCC Arbitration Institute applies its own appointment procedures where the parties cannot agree.

Arbitral tribunals seated in Sweden may grant interim relief, though their powers in this respect are narrower than those of the courts. Under the Swedish Arbitration Act, a tribunal may order a party to take specific action to secure the claim that is to be examined in the arbitration. Such an order is binding upon the parties but not enforceable with the Enforcement Authority (cf. interim orders from courts).

Interim relief may also be sought from the courts, both before and during arbitral proceedings. In practice, parties often combine these avenues, seeking urgent protection from a court while pursuing interim orders from the tribunal once constituted.

To address the need for swift protective measures before the arbitral tribunal has been appointed, the SCC Arbitration Institute allows a party to request the appointment of an Emergency Arbitrator, who may decide on interim measures within a few days.

As in most jurisdictions, it is a fundamental principle in Sweden that an arbitral award cannot be challenged on substantive grounds. Under the Swedish Arbitration Act, an award may only be challenged or annulled on limited procedural or legal grounds.

An arbitral award may be declared invalid, in whole or in part, if:

• it includes determination of an issue which, in accordance with Swedish law, may not be decided by arbitrators;
• the award, or the manner in which the award arose, is clearly incompatible with the basic principles of the Swedish legal system; or
• the award does not fulfil the requirements with regard to the written form and signature in accordance with section 31, first paragraph of the Swedish Arbitration Act.

An arbitral award may be set aside, in whole or in part, if:

• it is not covered by a valid arbitration agreement between the parties;
• the arbitrators have made the award after the expiration of the time limit set by the parties;
• the arbitrators have exceeded their mandate, in a manner that probably influenced the outcome;
• the arbitration, according to section 47 of the Swedish Arbitration Act, should not have taken place in Sweden;
• an arbitrator was appointed in a manner that violates the parties’ agreement or the Swedish Arbitration Act;
• an arbitrator was unauthorised to adjudicate the dispute due to any circumstance set forth in sections 7 or 8 of the Swedish Arbitration Act; or
• without fault of the party, there otherwise occurred an irregularity in the course of the proceedings which probably influenced the outcome of the case.

In addition, the tribunal’s determination of its fees and expenses may be appealed to a court under the Swedish Arbitration Act. This ensures judicial oversight over the reasonableness of the tribunal’s remuneration, even though the award itself cannot be appealed on substantive grounds.

Sweden is party to several major international instruments facilitating the recognition and enforcement of both foreign arbitral awards and foreign court judgments.

With respect to arbitral awards, Sweden ratified the 1958 New York Convention (the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards) in 1972. Under the Convention, foreign arbitral awards are recognised and enforced in Sweden, subject to limited grounds for refusal, such as public policy or an invalid arbitration agreement. Sweden is also a contracting state to the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States 1965 (ICSID). Awards rendered under the ICSID Convention are automatically enforceable and are not subject to exequatur proceedings.

As regards foreign court judgments, enforcement in Sweden is generally based on reciprocity under international conventions. Judgments from jurisdictions not covered by such treaties generally cannot be enforced automatically.

Within the European Union, Sweden applies the Brussels I Recast Regulation (1215/2012), which provides for the recognition and enforcement of judgments from other EU and EEA Member States. Sweden is also a party to:

• the Lugano Convention (2007) on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters;
• the Hague Choice of Court Convention (2005); and
• the Nordic Convention (1977) on the recognition and enforcement of judgments in private law matters, applicable between the Nordic countries.

Outside of these frameworks, Sweden has no general system for the automatic recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments.

In Sweden, any final and binding judgment on the merits in a commercial dispute is enforceable. Court-approved settlements are also enforceable, as are certain interim orders.

By contrast, non-final judgments that remain subject to appeal cannot be enforced, unless they have been expressly declared provisionally enforceable. Likewise, purely declaratory judgments, which only establish rights or obligations without ordering performance, are not enforceable.

With respect to foreign judgments, enforcement in Sweden is available only where the judgment falls within the scope of an international convention or EU regulation to which Sweden is a party and which has been incorporated into Swedish law.

Under the Brussels I Recast Regulation (1215/2012) and the Lugano Convention (2007), virtually all civil and commercial judgments are recognised and enforceable, subject only to specific exceptions (e.g. certain revenue, customs, or public law matters). Judgments from the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, and Norway) are enforceable through the Swedish Act on the Recognition and Enforcement of Nordic Judgments in Civil Matters (lag om erkännande och verkställighet av nordiska domar på privaträttens område), which provides for a simplified and streamlined procedure.

Outside these frameworks, that is, judgments from jurisdictions outside the EU/EEA or Nordic cooperation regimes, Sweden has no general system for recognition or enforcement. Such judgments may instead serve as evidence in new proceedings before Swedish courts.

Judgments from EU and EEA Member States falling under the Brussels I Recast Regulation (1215/2012) or the Lugano Convention (2007) are automatically recognised and enforceable in Sweden. In such cases, the judgment creditor applies directly to the Swedish Enforcement Authority, submitting a copy of the judgment together with the relevant certificate (under Article 53, Brussels I Recast Regulation or the equivalent provision under the Lugano Convention).

Judgments from the other Nordic countries — Denmark, Finland, Iceland, and Norway — are enforced under the Swedish Act on the Recognition and Enforcement of Nordic Judgments in Civil Matters. This act provides a simplified and streamlined procedure, allowing applications to be made directly to the Enforcement Authority with only limited formal requirements.

For judgments from outside the EU/EEA and Nordic frameworks, there is no automatic recognition. Instead, the judgment creditor must relitigate the claim before a Swedish court and obtain a new Swedish judgment prior to enforcement.

Domestic arbitral awards are automatically enforceable in Sweden without any separate registration or confirmation procedure. Foreign arbitral awards falling under the 1958 New York Convention, however, require an application for recognition and enforcement to the Svea Court of Appeal. The court reviews only the limited formal grounds for refusal listed in the Convention, such as public policy, an invalid arbitration agreement, or lack of due process. Once recognised, the award is treated as a Swedish judgment and can be enforced through the Enforcement Authority.

Arbitral awards rendered under the ICSID Convention are automatically enforceable in Sweden without any prior recognition process and are treated in the same way as domestic court judgments.

In Sweden, enforcement proceedings are handled by the Swedish Enforcement Authority. Once a judgment or arbitral award is enforceable, the Authority is responsible for executing it in accordance with the Enforcement Code (utsökningsbalken).

Available enforcement measures include:

• Attachment of assets. The principal enforcement measure. The Enforcement Authority may seize movable property, bank accounts, receivables, or real estate belonging to the debtor. Seized assets are typically sold at public auctions, and the proceeds are distributed to the creditor.
• Third-party debt orders. The Enforcement Authority may order third parties who owe money to the judgment debtor (for example, banks or customers) to pay those sums directly to the creditor.
• Non-monetary enforcement. The Enforcement Authority may enforce the delivery of goods or property and may also implement injunctions or orders to act through penalty fines.
• Wage garnishment. For individual debtors, the Enforcement Authority may deduct a portion of the debtor’s salary or other regular income and transfer it directly to the creditor.
• Eviction and recovery of possession. The Enforcement Authority may enforce judgments requiring a debtor to vacate premises or return property to the creditor.
• Specific performance and injunctions. The Enforcement Authority may enforce court orders to perform or refrain from an act, including by means of penalty fines.

Enforcement decisions of the Swedish Enforcement Authority may be appealed to a district court.

A creditor who expects to obtain or hold an enforceable judgment or arbitral award may apply for interim measures to preserve assets or otherwise protect its position pending enforcement. As noted above, the applicant must demonstrate probable cause for the underlying claim and show that there is a risk the debtor may evade payment by concealing or dissipating assets.

The most common interim measures are:

• Interim attachment. A Swedish court may order that the debtor’s assets be seized or frozen to secure a monetary claim. The applicant is normally required to provide security for potential damages if the measure later proves to have been unjustified.
• Prohibitory or mandatory injunctions. A court may order a party to do, or to refrain from doing, something temporarily until the matter is finally decided.

Interim measures may also be granted in support of arbitration, including proceedings seated outside Sweden, provided that the Swedish court has jurisdiction over the relevant assets or conduct.

Proceeding on the assumptions outlined in the Model Answer, would a court in this jurisdiction recognise and enforce the arbitral award under the New York Convention?

In particular:

• Does the award fall within the scope of Article V(1) of the Convention, or would any of the grounds in Article V(1) justify refusal on the assumed facts?
• Is the subject matter of the dispute capable of settlement by arbitration under domestic law for the purposes of Article V(2)(a)?
• Would recognition or enforcement of the award be contrary to public policy within the meaning of Article V(2)(b)?

Response

Article V(1)

Under Swedish law, and on the assumption that non-payment of a monetary obligation gives rise to a dispute capable of arbitration under the law governing the arbitration agreement and the seat, an arbitral award rendered pursuant to such a clause would not be excluded from recognition or enforcement merely because the arbitrator’s mandate is limited. The present case does not concern enforcement of the foreign court judgment as such, but recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award concerning a separate contractual obligation arising upon non-payment.

From an enforcement perspective, Swedish courts would assess the award under the New York Convention and the Swedish Arbitration Act (1999:116). An award ordering payment of an unpaid monetary amount together with interest would, in principle, be capable of recognition and enforcement, even where the arbitrator is precluded from revisiting the merits of the dispute previously determined by the court. On the stated assumptions, no clear ground for refusal under Article V(1) appears to apply.

Although arbitration under Swedish law is traditionally associated with the resolution of a genuine dispute involving substantive adjudication, Swedish courts adopt a pragmatic and enforcement-oriented approach. Provided that the arbitrator carries out a real, albeit limited, legal assessment, for example by verifying that the court judgment is final, binding and remains unpaid in accordance with the parties’ agreement, the resulting award would likely be regarded as a genuine arbitral award notwithstanding the narrowness of the tribunal’s mandate.

In such circumstances, refusal of enforcement under Article V(1) of the New York Convention would be unlikely. In particular, it would be difficult to argue that the arbitral tribunal exceeded its mandate if the tribunal’s task is expressly defined in the arbitration agreement and the tribunal acts within those contractual limits. Similarly, on the stated assumptions, there is no evident basis for suggesting invalidity of the arbitration agreement, lack of proper notice, procedural irregularity, or that the award is not yet binding.

Article V(2)(a)

Under Swedish law, the arbitrability of a dispute is primarily determined by whether the matter is capable of settlement between the parties. This principle is reflected in section 1 of the Swedish Arbitration Act.

While it would not be correct to state that all matters relating to financial obligations are automatically arbitrable, disputes concerning payment obligations between commercial parties will normally satisfy the settlement criterion and therefore be capable of arbitration.

Where the dispute concerns non-payment of a contractual obligation arising between the parties, such as an obligation triggered by non-payment of a court judgment, it would generally be regarded as a civil dispute capable of settlement. On the stated assumptions, the dispute referred to arbitration is not the underlying court dispute, nor the correctness of the foreign judgment, but whether a separate contractual payment obligation has arisen and what consequences follow from that under the parties’ agreement. A dispute concerning whether payment has been made and whether ancillary obligations such as interest or security arise would therefore normally be arbitrable under Swedish law.

Swedish law does not require that an arbitral tribunal revisit the underlying merits of a dispute. Parties enjoy wide autonomy to define and limit the tribunal’s mandate. Accordingly, the fact that the arbitrator’s role is confined to confirming the finality of a judgment and the debtor’s non-payment would not in itself render the arbitration invalid, provided the tribunal is exercising adjudicative judgment rather than performing a purely administrative function.

Similarly, an obligation to provide security, if framed as a contractual consequence of non-payment and entrusted to the arbitrator to determine, would not in itself be considered non-arbitrable under Swedish law.

It may also be noted that Swedish doctrine accepts that where the substantive dispute is governed by foreign law, and the matter is arbitrable under that law, Swedish courts may recognise the validity of the arbitration agreement even if the matter would not be arbitrable under Swedish law itself.

Article V(2)(b)

Recognition or enforcement of the award would also have to be considered in light of Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention, which allows refusal where enforcement would be contrary to public policy.

Under Swedish law, the public policy exception is applied restrictively. An award would normally only be refused enforcement on this ground if enforcement would clearly conflict with fundamental principles of the Swedish legal order.

In the present scenario, the award would not in itself undermine the authority of the underlying court judgment, since the tribunal would not revisit the merits of that judgment but merely determine whether the contractual consequences of non-payment have arisen. The award does not purport to enforce the foreign judgment as such, but to give effect to a separate contractual mechanism agreed by the parties, under which non-payment gives rise to a new contractual obligation and a distinct arbitral dispute.

At the same time, doctrine has identified structural concerns in situations where arbitral awards and court judgments coexist in respect of the same underlying claim. In particular, it has been suggested that allowing an arbitral award effectively to replicate a court judgment could create a theoretical risk that a creditor might attempt to rely on both instruments in parallel in order to enforce the same debt. Such a scenario could potentially raise issues relating to res judicata, abuse of process, or double recovery. These concerns are, however, largely theoretical and would normally be addressed through procedural safeguards at the enforcement stage. Courts and enforcement authorities would prevent double recovery and ensure that the creditor does not obtain payment twice for the same obligation.

The mere fact that a prior foreign judgment exists in relation to the underlying dispute does not, by itself, make a later arbitral award concerning a separate contractual obligation contrary to Swedish public policy. A narrow reservation may nevertheless be appropriate. If, notwithstanding the assumptions in the case study, a Swedish court were to conclude that the arrangement was not in substance a genuine contractual mechanism, but a purely artificial device designed only to evade the rules applicable to foreign judgments, a public policy objection could conceivably arise. On the stated assumptions, however, a Swedish court would likely not refuse recognition or enforcement of the arbitral award.

Summary

Under Swedish law, a court would likely recognise and enforce the arbitral award under the New York Convention. No clear ground for refusal under Article V(1) appears to apply, and the dispute is likely capable of settlement by arbitration under Swedish law for the purposes of Article V(2)(a).

As regards Article V(2)(b), Swedish doctrine may identify structural concerns where a court judgment and an arbitral award coexist in relation to the same underlying debt. However, those concerns are largely theoretical and would normally be managed through safeguards against double recovery at the enforcement stage. On the stated assumptions, they do not appear sufficient to justify refusal on public policy grounds.