Unreasoned Arbitral Awards can be Compatible with Article 6 of the ECHR – New Judgment from the European Court of Human Rights

In a recent judgment delivered on 9 June 2026, the European Court of Human Rights (the “ECtHR”) addressed whether unreasoned arbitral awards can be compatible with the right to a fair trial under Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the “ECHR”). The judgment clarifies that unreasoned arbitral awards can, subject to certain prerequisites, be compatible with Article 6(1). For arbitrations seated in Sweden, the judgment is of particular interest, since the Swedish Arbitration Act (1999:116) (the “SAA”) does not require arbitral awards to be reasoned.

Background

Two limited liability companies, the applicant company and another company, referred to in the judgment as the M. company, had concluded six contracts for repair work to rail tunnels. All contracts provided that disputes concerning certain specified issues be submitted to arbitration under the rules of the Arbitration Institute of the Finland Chamber of Commerce (the “FAI”). After a dispute arose, the M. company initiated arbitration proceedings under the rules of the FAI, and the parties agreed that the dispute should be conducted under the FAI Rules for Expedited Arbitration (the “FAI Rules”). Pursuant to Section 41.1 of the FAI Rules, an arbitral award shall not contain reasons unless a party requests a reasoned award within the time limit set by the arbitrator.

After the proceedings had been initiated, a case management conference was held, at which the applicant company was represented by two lawyers. During the conference, the parties stated that the arbitral award need not contain reasons. Following the session, the arbitrator emailed the parties and asked them to indicate, within a specified time limit, whether either party nevertheless wished to receive a reasoned award. None of the parties requested a reasoned award within the time limit.

The arbitrator subsequently issued an arbitral award ordering the applicant company to pay the M. company for unpaid invoices. The arbitral award set out neither the facts, the legal reasoning, nor the grounds underlying the ruling.

Following the issuance of the arbitral award, the applicant company brought unsuccessful actions before the Finnish national courts, seeking to have the award declared null and void, on the basis that the absence of reasons violated Finnish public policy. The applicant company consequently lodged a complaint before the ECtHR, arguing that the lack of any reasoning in the arbitral award violated Article 6(1) of the ECHR (case Jiitee Työt Oy v. Finland (no. 2895/25), 9 June 2026).

The Determination by the European Court of Human Rights

In its judgement, the ECtHR recalled that Article 6(1) of the ECHR includes a right of access to a court, but that parties who accept an arbitration clause voluntarily waive certain rights under the Convention. In the case of “voluntary arbitration”, no real issue arises under Article 6 of the Convention, but that does not mean that all rights under said Article are waived. The ECtHR therefore went on to assess whether the applicant company had validly waived its right to a reasoned decision.

According to the ECtHR, for a waiver to be valid under the ECHR, it must be free, lawful and unequivocal. In addition, for certain rights, the waiver must be accompanied by minimum guarantees proportionate to its importance. The ECtHR found that the applicant company had freely and voluntarily accepted expedited arbitration, thereby waiving its right to a reasoned decision, and that neither the Finnish Arbitration Act (967/1992) (the “FAA”) nor the Finnish constitution prevented such a waiver. The ECtHR also noted that both the FAA and the FAI Rules contained several procedural safeguards. Consequently, the ECtHR concluded that the waiver was lawful. The remaining questions were whether the waiver had been unequivocal and whether, despite the waiver, the complete absence of reasons would constitute a lack of proper safeguards under Article 6(1) of the ECHR.

Turning to permissibility, the ECtHR noted that Article 6(1) includes a right for parties in a dispute to “submit any observations that they consider relevant to their case” (para. 66). For that right to be practical and effective, a judicial decision-maker must properly examine the parties’ submissions, arguments and evidence, including the main pleas and submissions that are decisive to the outcome of the case. Decision-making bodies are therefore under a duty to state the reasons for their decisions, although compliance with that duty must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

In the present case, the ECtHR concluded that there was no indication that the applicant company’s right to be heard had been violated or that the arbitral tribunal had failed to duly consider its submissions. Both the applicant company and the M. company had confirmed that they had been offered an adequate opportunity to present their case. The ECtHR also observed that neither the FAA nor the Finnish constitution required arbitral awards to be reasoned, and that no such requirement followed from international arbitration treaties, such as the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958, commonly known as the New York Convention. The ECtHR found that the applicant company had agreed to the application of the FAI Rules, which did not provide for a reasoned arbitral award unless requested by the parties, and that the applicant company had not requested a reasoned award either during the case management conference or afterwards, despite having been expressly invited to do so. Against that background, and noting that the applicant company was represented by two lawyers, the ECtHR concluded that the applicant company had expressly and unequivocally waived the right to a reasoned arbitral award on several occasions. Since both the domestic law and the FAI Rules contained procedural safeguards, the ECtHR found that the right to a reasoned decision did not constitute such a fundamental procedural principle that a waiver thereof would be impermissible in voluntary arbitration proceedings, provided that the above-mentioned requirements of a valid waiver are fulfilled.

As the applicant company had waived its right to a reasoned arbitral award in a free, lawful and unequivocal manner and the waiver was accompanied by minimum guarantees commensurate with their importance, the ECtHR found that there had been no violation of Article 6(1) of the ECHR.

Comments from a Swedish Perspective

By emphasising the parties’ consent, the ECtHR has given weight to party autonomy, while still recognising that a waiver of the right to a reasoned decision must satisfy minimum legal safeguards. On the question of whether an arbitral award must be reasoned, Article 6(1) of the ECHR therefore allows for flexible solutions, subject to domestic law. Practically, parties who want to include or exclude reasons in an arbitral award, should consider what is prescribed in any arbitration rules that they have agreed to apply, as well as what is laid down in the applicable lex arbitri. The judgment also shows the relevance of what is, or is not, expressed at a case management conference, as well as any time limits for requesting a reasoned award.

Swedish Law and Arbitration Rules

From a Swedish perspective, the ECtHR’s judgment is relevant because the SAA, like the FAA but unlike the Danish and Norwegian arbitration laws, does not require arbitral awards to be reasoned. In the preparatory works for the SAA, the legislator noted arguments both for and against including such a requirement. The legislator also observed that the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration and several domestic laws of other states included such a provision, and that a reasoned arbitral award may be considered to be in the parties’ interest. According to the legislator, reasons in the arbitral award also aid in the interpretation of the operative part of the award, as well as the award’s res judicata effect. Conversely, the legislator noted that a requirement for an arbitral award to be reasoned would also entail including the possibility to challenge the award in the absence of reasons, which would be contrary to the overall aim of the finality of arbitral awards. The legislator also held that it would be difficult to establish the qualitative standards that would apply to the reasons. In addition, the legislator emphasised issues with arbitrations that were merely determinations of quality, so-called sniff and look arbitrations. The legislator also highlighted the aspect of costs. Consequently, the legislator concluded that the most apt solution was to leave it to the parties to decide whether they wanted an arbitral award to be reasoned (Govt. bill 1998/99:35, pp. 133-134).

The Swedish constitutional position is slightly less explicit than the Finnish one. Chapter 2, Section 11, para. 2 of the Instrument of Government (1974:152), which forms part of the Swedish constitution, does not specifically refer to reasons in judgments, but generally states that a trial must be fair. According to the preparatory works, the right to a fair trial includes, among other things, the right to be heard and to present one’s claims. However, the legislator also noted that not all the legal safeguards enshrined in the right to a fair trial are without exception (Govt. bill 2009/10:80, p. 160).

As a general note, it can further be added that Sections 33 and 34 of the SAA provide several procedural safeguards under which an arbitral award may be declared null and void or set aside for violations of certain rights.

On the basis of the above, Swedish law appears largely to align with Finnish law as regards reasons in arbitral awards. Turning to Swedish arbitration rules, Article 42(1) of the SCC Arbitration Rules stipulates that the arbitral award should be reasoned, unless otherwise agreed by the parties. However, similar to the FAI Rules, Article 42(1) of the SCC Expedited Arbitration Rules does not require an arbitral award to be reasoned, although a party may request a reasoned award at the latest at the closing statement. It can be added that both the SCC Arbitration Rules and the SCC Expedited Arbitration Rules afford the parties an opportunity to object to any failure to comply with any provisions of the respective rules in Article 36 and Article 37 respectively.

Swedish Case Law

If the parties have agreed that the arbitral award must contain reasons, a failure to state reasons or having seriously insufficient reasons may potentially lead to the award being set aside due to a procedural irregularity under Section 34, para. 1, point 7 of the SAA. In Soyak NJA 2009 p. 128, the Swedish Supreme Court distinguished between the parties’ expectations or best practice amongst arbitrators, on the one hand, and deficiencies so serious that they justify setting aside an award, on the other. The Supreme Court held that only a total absence of reasons, or reasons so incomplete that they are equivalent to a lack of reasons, constitute such a procedural irregularity. In such cases, it can according to the Swedish Supreme Court be presumed that the irregularity affected the outcome of the case (which is one of the prerequisites for setting aside an arbitral award under the current Section 34, para. 1, point 7 of the SAA).

In a later ruling, the Svea Court of Appeal held, by reference to Soyak NJA 2009 p. 128, that a requirement concerning the reasons in an arbitral award presupposes that the arbitration agreement requires the award to contain reasons. Since the appellant had not, according to the Court of Appeal, argued that the arbitration agreement required a reasoned arbitral award, no procedural irregularity was found in this regard (Svea Court of Appeal, 10 January 2014, case T 3780-12).

Practical Takeaways

Even though the ECHR, according to the judgment of the ECtHR, does not preclude parties agreeing to unreasoned arbitral awards, this does not mean that arbitral awards always should lack reasons. There are several benefits of reasons being included in arbitral awards, such as allowing for interpretation and understanding of, as well as compliance with, the arbitral award. As acknowledged in the preparatory works of the SAA, it also assists in establishing the arbitral award’s res judicata effect. In addition, reasons may constitute a safeguard to ensure proper examination of the case and force the arbitral tribunal to thoroughly consider the facts and arguments of the case. However, as confirmed by the ECtHR, where the parties’ interests, commercial or otherwise, support excluding reasons from the arbitral award, they may opt to do so, without Article 6(1) of the ECHR being violated, provided that the waiver is free, lawful, unequivocal and accompanied by sufficient safeguards.