## Facts

- Societe Gotaverken Arendal A.B. (Gotaverken) obtained an arbitral award against General National Maritime Transport Co. (GNMT) after arbitration in France conducted under the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Rules.
- The parties’ arbitration agreement stated that any award would be finally binding and enforceable between them.
- After the award issued, GNMT filed proceedings in a French court seeking to set the award aside.
- While the French set-aside case remained unresolved, Gotaverken filed an enforcement action in Sweden seeking recognition and enforcement of the award.
- The Swedish Court of Appeal ordered enforcement of the award in Sweden.
- GNMT appealed to the Swedish Supreme Court, arguing that enforcement should be denied because the award was not yet “final” given the still-pending French set-aside proceedings.

## Issues

1. Whether a foreign ICC award rendered in France could be enforced in Sweden even though GNMT had a set-aside action pending in France.
2. Whether the award should be treated as non-final (and therefore unenforceable) in Sweden until the French set-aside proceedings concluded.
3. Whether Swedish enforcement review permitted reconsideration beyond the limited statutory grounds governing recognition of foreign awards.

## Decision

- The Swedish Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s enforcement order.
- The Court held that the award could be enforced in Sweden despite the unresolved French set-aside proceedings.
- The Court declined to treat the award as non-final solely because a set-aside action had been filed in France.

## Legal Principles

- Under Sweden’s statutory framework for foreign arbitral awards, enforcement review is confined to specified, generally procedural, defects; the enforcing court does not reexamine the merits.
- A pending set-aside action in the country of the seat does not, by itself, prevent enforcement of an award in Sweden.
- An award may be treated as binding and enforceable in Sweden when no statutory ground for refusal is shown, even if a challenge is still being litigated at the seat.
- The existence of foreign court proceedings attacking an award may be considered in an enforcement case, but it does not automatically require refusal of enforcement.

## Conclusion

The Swedish Supreme Court held that Sweden could enforce an ICC award made in France even though the award debtor had initiated set-aside proceedings in French court, because Swedish enforcement proceedings are limited to the statutory refusal grounds and the mere pendency of a foreign challenge did not make the award unenforceable in Sweden.


General Nat'l Maritime Transport Co. v. Societe Gotaverken Arendal A.B., [1979] 21 Va. J. Int’l L. 211 (1981)