您现在的位置:一裁网>> 仲裁数据库>> 司法案例>> 国外法院>> 瑞典 >> 详细资料
The estate of JAR申请执行外国仲裁裁决案
点击数:
【文书性质】决定
【文书编号】 Ö 2237-12
【发布机构】 Supreme Court of Sweden
【案件类型】 外国仲裁裁决的执行
【发布日期】 2014年03月18日
【裁判人员】
【代理律师】
【当 事 人】 The estate of JAR,NCC International Aktiebolag
【国 别】 瑞典
【主 题】 执行外国仲裁裁决
【案件摘要】 A party sought enforcement in Sweden of an award rendered in Honduras. The party sought enforcement against “NCC AB,” who was not listed as party in the award. The requesting party alleged that by mistake the award listed “NCC AS” as party.
【全文】         

Decision of the Supreme Court of Sweden, 18 March 2014, Case No. Ö 2237-12

HD, Ö 2237-12, English

 

HD, Ö 2237-12, Swedish

 

Date of decision

Court

The Supreme Court

Case No.

Case No. Ö 2237-12

Subject Matter

enforcement of foreign award

Summary

A party sought enforcement in Sweden of an award rendered in Honduras. The party sought enforcement against “NCC AB,” who was not listed as party in the award. The requesting party alleged that by mistake the award listed “NCC AS” as party, yet the tribunal in reality meant “NCC AB” and that, in any case, “NCC AB” had assumed liability for the obligations of “NCC AS” under the award. The Court explained that Section 57 of the Swedish Arbitration Act provides that an application for enforcement shall be denied when the opposing party has not been afforded an opportunity to comment on the application. The Court’s review of the application for enforcement is mainly formal and the Court does not review the merits of the issues decided in the award. The Court reviews who are the correct parties based on what the award states. The award stated as respondent the “subsidiary in Costa Rica of the company NCC International A.S., a company incorporated in Sweden.” The application for enforcement was against “NCC AB” and it was not obvious that this was a typo in such manner that “NCC AB” was the company intended in the award. Also, the question whether “NCC AB” had assumed liability for “NCC AS” obligations under the award may not be reviewed within the scope of an application for enforcement. The Court dismissed the application.