Answer ... Pursuant to Section 1 of the Arbitration Act, only “matters in respect of which the parties may reach a settlement” may be the subject of arbitration. Thus, a wide interpretation of arbitrability applies pursuant to Swedish law and few matters are excluded from arbitrability. For example, questions regarding forfeiture or other penal consequences of a criminal case and most cases of family law cannot be referred to arbitration. Further, certain issues regarding patent and trademark litigation are not regarded as arbitrable, since they have an effect on third parties. Pursuant to Section 1, paragraph 3 of the Arbitration Act, arbitrators may rule on the effects of competition law as between the parties.

An arbitration agreement referring future consumer disputes to arbitration is not valid. In addition, according to Section 36 of the Swedish Contracts Act, an arbitration agreement may be set aside if it would be unreasonable to uphold it under the particular circumstances of the case. An arbitration clause between a business and a consumer is typically considered unreasonable, according to precedents of the Swedish Supreme Court (eg, see NJA 1981 p 711 and NJA 1982 p 800).

Pursuant to the Labour Disputes Judicial Procedures Act, labour disputes may be referred to arbitration, with certain exceptions. The validity of an arbitration clause in an employment contract must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. The Labour High Court has in precedents established that the mere fact that an employee may incur additional costs in arbitration than in court litigation does not per se render an arbitration clause unreasonable. Other aspects such as the parties’ interests in confidentiality and a swift resolution may speak in favour of upholding the arbitration clause – in particular, in relation to executives and other qualified employees.

Answer ... No, there are no such restrictions on the choice of seat of arbitration.