Judgment of the Stockholm District Court, 18 December 2002, Case No. T 6-583-98
Summary: The claimant requested the Stockholm District Court to deny enforcement of the arbitral award, alleging, among others, that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction as no arbitration agreement ever existed between the parties. The District Court rejected the claims applying the theory of assertion, according to which a dispute falls within the jurisdiction of a tribunal when a party asserts that its claim is based on the main agreement which includes an arbitration clause, provided that this assertion is not obviously unfounded. In this case, the respondent asserted that it was an investor with permanent domicile of the host state (claimant) and it was entitled to investment protection under the applicable convention containing the arbitration agreement. In the view of the District Court this assertion was sufficient to grant jurisdiction to the tribunal to try the case on the merits. The Court emphasized that what the tribunal subsequently decided on the status of the respondent and its right to be protected by the convention is irrelevant to the question of the existence of a valid arbitration agreement.