In April 2009, the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC) unveiled draft new rules providing for the appointment of an "emergency arbitrator" to order interim measures of protection prior to the constitution of an arbitral tribunal. The Board of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce adopted the new rules on 9 December 2009 (see Legal update, SCC adopts emergency arbitrator rules). The new rules, which will be included in Article 32 of the current SCC Arbitration Rules and the Expedited Rules, will come into force on 1 January 2010 and will apply to all SCC arbitrations unless the parties expressly agree otherwise. Under the new rules, the Board of the SCC Institute will be required to appoint an emergency arbitrator within 24 hours of receiving an application (which will have to be made on notice to the other party). The emergency arbitrator will then make a decision on interim measures within five days.

The original draft rules generated considerable debate in the arbitration community and the SCC received numerous comments on them. The debate has resulted in a number of amendments in the original proposal. The purposes behind the "Emergency Rules" remain to strengthen the SCC Rules and make them more attractive and useful for potential users. A more detailed analysis of the emergency arbitrator rules will be provided in the January edition of the PLC Arbitration multi-jurisdictional e-mail.

In Soyak International Construction and Investment Inc. ("Soyak") v Hober, Kraus and Melis, the Swedish District Court considered whether fees which had been "finally determined" by the SCC pursuant to its arbitration rules could be challenged in court (see Legal update, The Soyak case: challenging arbitrators' fees under the SCC Rules). The respondents were the arbitrators appointed in an arbitration between Soyak and Hochtief AG under the SCC rules of arbitration (SCC Rules). Soyak sought a reduction of the arbitrators’ fees. The Swedish Supreme Court held that there was nothing to prevent Soyak from challenging those fees, even though the decision had been made by the SCC under its rules.

Although the case was remitted to the District Court for a substantive decision, it did not need to decide the issue, as the arbitrators had agreed to reduce their fees. However, practitioners continue to debate the position in light of the Supreme Court’s decision. The fact that there was no procedural obstacle to the challenge should certainly not be understood as providing any indication as to the approach the courts will take to the issue. According to Article 43 of the SCC Rules, the Board of the SCC shall "finally determine the Costs of the Arbitration in accordance with the Schedule of Costs" applicable in the arbitration in question. It is hoped that the situation will be clarified as soon as possible.