The new rules of the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC) providing for the appointment of an “emergency arbitrator” to order interim measures of protection prior to the constitution of an arbitral tribunal, entered into force on 1 January 2010 (see Legal update, Revised SCC arbitration rules have entered into force). The SCC Institute has received four applications for the appointment of an emergency arbitrator in the course of the first year of the rules, involving parties from a multitude of jurisdictions. The SCC Institute has made known that it succeeded in appointing the emergency arbitrator in all four cases within 24 hours from receipt of the application. The SCC Institute plans to publish a report on its experience of the emergency arbitrator rules shortly.

The question marks resulting from the much criticised 2005 decision of the Svea Court of Appeal in Titan v ALCATEL (in which it dismissed a challenge of an SCC award for lack of sufficient connection to Sweden) has been clarified by the Swedish Supreme Court’s decision of 12 November 2010 in Rosinvest v The Russian Federation (see Legal update, The Swedish Supreme Court confirms Swedish courts' jurisdiction to hear Russian Federation's request for a declaratory judgment in Yukos arbitration). In Rosinvest, the Supreme Court clearly rejected the reasoning of the Titan case and confirmed the parties’ right to choose the lex arbitri (commonly made by the choice of venue). Further, the court held that the nationality of parties, arbitrators and location of hearings do not reflect on the jurisdiction of the Swedish courts to hear appeals against awards rendered under and pursuant to the Swedish Arbitration Act.