The Labour Court recently reviewed whether actions conducted by the employees of a private waste collection and transportation company were illicit collective strike actions. According to the court, the employees had refrained from performing their work tasks in order to pressure the company into ending the demands to conduct an inventory of keys. This was a stoppage of work and an illicit collective strike action, since it had not been duly decided by the trade union.
A Swedish district court recently ruled on a matter where approximately 800 Chileans had sued a Swedish mining company for damages, based on the grounds that the mining company had exported toxic waste which subsequently caused damage to the plaintiffs' health. The court held that the mining company was not liable for damages and the plaintiffs were obliged to pay the mining company's full litigation costs.
The past two years have seen corporate bonds emerge as a natural alternative to bank loans on the Swedish financial market. While traditional bank loans remain the first-choice financial solution for most corporations, demand for bonds has grown significantly over the past decade. Recently introduced national and European regulations have set out new information requirements for existing and new bond prospectuses.
Under the Competition Act, claims that a document is covered by legal privilege may be assessed by the courts. However, no equivalent possibility of judicial review exists for documents that allegedly fall outside the scope of dawn raid warrants. The question remains as to whether the lack of judicial review of such decisions is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and EU law.
The Supreme Court has rendered its judgment in a long-running dispute concerning private copying levies on mobile phones with an external memory device. The court found that the right to collect private copying levies extends to devices which consist of two technically independent devices, even if the independent devices are not "especially suited for the production of copies of works for private use" and would thus not be subject to private copying levies if sold individually.
The debate regarding hidden marketing by influencers has been ongoing for some time, as social media's influencer scene grows from strength to strength. A recent judicial court judgment that the indication that a post constitutes marketing must be made at the very beginning of the post is perhaps unsurprising, as it is based on an established principle that the consumer must be able to identify marketing before he or she has read the entire advertisement.
The Supreme Court has confirmed that domain names are property which can be forfeited to the state, providing rights holders with another measure in their fight against online infringement. The court noted that the concept of 'property' is central for the rules on forfeiture. It concluded that a person who registers a domain name is granted an exclusive right to that domain name and the right to a domain name may be subject to dispute resolution and entitlement claims.
Two appeal courts recently ruled on two separate cases in which arbitral awards were challenged on the basis that the tribunals had departed from decisions made on issues of merits in procedural orders. Generally, procedural orders are not final and binding and a tribunal is free to amend previously issued procedural orders. However, procedural orders are sometimes used as a tool for making interim decisions on the merits of the case.
In the mid-1980s a Swedish mining company exported toxic waste to Chile to be processed. In the 1990s the waste was allegedly used in building foundations and the high arsenic levels allegedly caused serious health issues to the local residents. Subsequently, close to 800 Chileans sued the Swedish mining company. The trial started in October 2017 after more than three years of preparatory proceedings. A decision is expected in early 2018.
In December 2017 the Svea Court of Appeal dismissed an abuse of dominance damages claim against Telia Company AB. In 2013 Telia was fined for abusing its dominant position in the asymmetric digital subscriber line market by applying a margin squeeze on its competitors. Earlier in 2017 a follow-on claim by telecoms operator Yarps, based on the same infringement, was rejected by the Svea Court of Appeal.
Companies and individuals acting on the Swedish labour market should be aware of the delimitation in law between consultants and employees. Whether an individual is to be considered a company consultant or an employee will determine the applicability of employment protection and could have significant tax implications affecting both companies and private individuals.
The Financial Supervisory Authority recently agreed on more stringent amortisation requirements for home mortgages. The debt burden on Swedish households has long been a concern for regulators, and the authority is now taking an activist approach in an effort to mitigate the risk of a widespread crisis in case of a downturn in the housing market.
A bankruptcy estate may take action for the claw back of transactions that have been carried out in relation to a certain creditor before the initiation of bankruptcy proceedings, if such transactions have been adverse to the interests of other creditors. Certain transactions can be reversed during a five-year hardening period if the relevant creditor knew, or should have known, that the debtor was insolvent when the transactions were undertaken.
A case regarding the enforceability of an electronic promissory note was recently decided by the Supreme Court. The court investigated whether the relevant electronic loan document was to be viewed as a non-negotiable or negotiable instrument, and settled that it was indeed a non-negotiable promissory note. This meant that the requirement to present an original document to the Enforcement Authority did not apply.
The Supreme Court recently referred a case to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) concerning the demarcation of insurance mediation and investment advice, and the extent to which the statutory liability insurance for insurance intermediaries should respond to claims in respect of such services. In tandem with the ECJ proceedings, the Swedish Ministry of Finance proposed that the EU Insurance Distribution Directive 2016/97 be transposed into local law by way of introducing an insurance distribution act.
Most franchise agreements in Sweden contain an arbitration clause. When entering into a settlement agreement a franchisor must ensure that the arbitration clause in the franchise agreement explicitly covers the settlement agreement. The easiest way to do this is to put an arbitration clause into the settlement agreement.
In eight landmark decisions, the Patent and Market Court of Appeal decided that the terms for already granted supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) should be recalculated in order to reflect a 2015 European Court of Justice decision regarding the method for calculating SPC terms under EU Regulation 469/2009. Several pharmaceutical companies that had been granted SPCs noted that the Patent and Registration Office's method of calculating SPC terms was not in line with EU law.
The Svea Court of Appeal recently rejected City Säkerhet's motion to set aside an arbitral award. The judgment clarifies whether an arbitrator's application of a legal rule to which neither party referred in the arbitration may constitute grounds to challenge the arbitration award. The principle of jura novit curia (ie, the court knows the law), which is applicable in court proceedings, should also apply in Swedish arbitration unless otherwise agreed by the parties.
After years of intense debate, a new government bill will give the Competition Authority greater decision-making powers in relation to notified mergers in Sweden. An official government report states that the authority's decision-making powers should lead to an increased incentive for fast, high-quality decision making and eliminate time losses that might arise as a result of the authority preparing a lawsuit instead of a decision.
The Supreme Court recently clarified that copyright infringement is not a crime where the presumed penalty is imprisonment. This decision marks a change in relation to previous case law regarding the penalty for copyright infringement through illegal file sharing. The Supreme Court has now aligned the view on the severity of IP infringements. This is a welcome development, although rights holders may have benefited from a stricter view and a development in the opposite direction.