Om prejudikat och prejudikattolkning
(2011) JURM01 20111Department of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Den moderna synen på prejudikathantering utgår inte ifrån att formulera någon allomfattande prejudikatlära eller prejudikattolkningslära. Istället respekteras prejudikatens olikheter och behandlingen av dem tillåts variera och anpassas efter förutsättningarna i det enskilda fallet.
Den svenska rättsvetenskapen har kommit en bit på vägen med att anpassa prejudikattolkningsläran utifrån den moderna synen på prejudikathantering-en. Ett trettiotal handlingsdirigerande tumregler, av varierande betydelse och kvalitet, som kompletterar de grundläggande prejudikattolkningsprinciperna kan identifieras. Reglerna illustrerar även att forskningen kring prejudikat-användningen har ändrat fokus från att försöka rättfärdiga systemet till frå-gor... (More) - Den moderna synen på prejudikathantering utgår inte ifrån att formulera någon allomfattande prejudikatlära eller prejudikattolkningslära. Istället respekteras prejudikatens olikheter och behandlingen av dem tillåts variera och anpassas efter förutsättningarna i det enskilda fallet.
Den svenska rättsvetenskapen har kommit en bit på vägen med att anpassa prejudikattolkningsläran utifrån den moderna synen på prejudikathantering-en. Ett trettiotal handlingsdirigerande tumregler, av varierande betydelse och kvalitet, som kompletterar de grundläggande prejudikattolkningsprinciperna kan identifieras. Reglerna illustrerar även att forskningen kring prejudikat-användningen har ändrat fokus från att försöka rättfärdiga systemet till frå-gor relaterade till praktisk prejudikathantering.
Även om det inte råder någon formell prejudikatbundenhet i Sverige har bundenheten i realiteten blivit avsevärt starkare det senaste halvseklet. De moderna prejudikattolkningsprinciperna tillåter dock fortfarande avsteg från prejudikatbundenheten, vilket stödjer att bundenheten fortfarande inte, var-ken de facto eller principiellt, är absolut.
Hur prejudikattolkningen behöver anpassas utifrån förutsättningarna som omgärdar prejudikaten kan även användas för att säga något om hur ett lät-tanvänt och lättolkat prejudikat borde vara utformat. Utan att ge tillräcklig grund för att formulera en entydig prejudikatlära, presenterar det en del lär-domar avseende såväl god prejudikatformulering, som god prejudikathante-ring. Istället för att sprida osäkerhet i prejudikatfloran genom distinguishing the case utifrån ytliga olikheter, borde hanteringen vara inriktad på öppenhet och tydlighet, genom klara uppgörelser med tidigare praxis.
Angående prejudikatets utformning är det en balansgång mellan olika in-tressen som delvis påverkas av hur prejudikathantering utvecklas: vad Högsta domstolen (HD) lägger vikt vid i sin prejudikatanvändning påverkar faror och förtjänster med olika utformningar. Utöver att det är en balans-gång kan tilläggas att ökad institutionalisering av vissa moment vore nyttigt, och att medvetet fördunklande formuleringar eller tillvägagångssätt borde upphöra till förmån för öppenhet. Ett annat alternativ är att oklara avgöran-den i högre utsträckning placerades bland notisfallen. (Less) - Abstract
- The modern view of precedent management in Sweden doesn’t rely on any comprehensive precedent doctrine or precedent interpretation doc-trine. Instead the differences between precedents are respected, and the precedent management is allowed to vary depending on the circumstances related to the precedent at hand.
The Swedish legal science has made some progress in adapting the prece-dent interpretation doctrine to the modern view of precedent management. About thirty rules of thumb that complement the basic principles for prece-dent interpretation can be identified. Although the quality and importance of these rules of thumb vary, they illustrate that the emphasis of precedent in-terpretation research has shifted from theoretical... (More) - The modern view of precedent management in Sweden doesn’t rely on any comprehensive precedent doctrine or precedent interpretation doc-trine. Instead the differences between precedents are respected, and the precedent management is allowed to vary depending on the circumstances related to the precedent at hand.
The Swedish legal science has made some progress in adapting the prece-dent interpretation doctrine to the modern view of precedent management. About thirty rules of thumb that complement the basic principles for prece-dent interpretation can be identified. Although the quality and importance of these rules of thumb vary, they illustrate that the emphasis of precedent in-terpretation research has shifted from theoretical attempts to justify the sys-tem towards the more practical oriented work of formulating management rules. Although the result thus might be regarded as modest, it may serve as a hint that more progress is yet to come.
The modern principles of precedent interpretation also support the argument that precedent ruling still isn’t absolute in Sweden. Although there is no formal support for the idea of absolute precedent ruling in Sweden, the precedent ruling has in reality become much stronger during the past half century. The modern principles of precedent interpretation allow difference from precedents, which suggests that precedent ruling still isn’t, either in fact or in principle, absolute.
How precedent interpretation needs to be adjusted based on the conditions surrounding the individual precedent can also be used to gain information concerning the design of a good precedent. Without providing sufficient basis for formulating a precedent doctrine, it provides some information on both good precedent formulation, and good precedent handling. Instead of distinguishing the case on the basis of superficial differences, the Supreme Court’s precedent handling should focus on openness and transparency, through clear disruptions with precedents the Court no longer feels should be regarded as such.
Regarding the design of the precedent it’s a balancing act between different interests, which is partly influenced by how the Supreme Court’s precedent handling develops. In addition to that it’s a balancing act may be added that increased institutionalization of certain elements would be useful, and knowingly obscuring expressions should be abandoned in favour of open-ness or that vague and ambiguous cases to a larger extent isn’t given the status of precedents. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/1980241
- author
- Normann, Tobias LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- Precedents and precedent interpretation
- course
- JURM01 20111
- year
- 2011
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 1980241
- date added to LUP
- 2011-06-20 17:12:30
- date last changed
- 2011-06-20 17:12:30
@misc{1980241,
abstract = {{The modern view of precedent management in Sweden doesn’t rely on any comprehensive precedent doctrine or precedent interpretation doc-trine. Instead the differences between precedents are respected, and the precedent management is allowed to vary depending on the circumstances related to the precedent at hand.
The Swedish legal science has made some progress in adapting the prece-dent interpretation doctrine to the modern view of precedent management. About thirty rules of thumb that complement the basic principles for prece-dent interpretation can be identified. Although the quality and importance of these rules of thumb vary, they illustrate that the emphasis of precedent in-terpretation research has shifted from theoretical attempts to justify the sys-tem towards the more practical oriented work of formulating management rules. Although the result thus might be regarded as modest, it may serve as a hint that more progress is yet to come.
The modern principles of precedent interpretation also support the argument that precedent ruling still isn’t absolute in Sweden. Although there is no formal support for the idea of absolute precedent ruling in Sweden, the precedent ruling has in reality become much stronger during the past half century. The modern principles of precedent interpretation allow difference from precedents, which suggests that precedent ruling still isn’t, either in fact or in principle, absolute.
How precedent interpretation needs to be adjusted based on the conditions surrounding the individual precedent can also be used to gain information concerning the design of a good precedent. Without providing sufficient basis for formulating a precedent doctrine, it provides some information on both good precedent formulation, and good precedent handling. Instead of distinguishing the case on the basis of superficial differences, the Supreme Court’s precedent handling should focus on openness and transparency, through clear disruptions with precedents the Court no longer feels should be regarded as such.
Regarding the design of the precedent it’s a balancing act between different interests, which is partly influenced by how the Supreme Court’s precedent handling develops. In addition to that it’s a balancing act may be added that increased institutionalization of certain elements would be useful, and knowingly obscuring expressions should be abandoned in favour of open-ness or that vague and ambiguous cases to a larger extent isn’t given the status of precedents.}},
author = {{Normann, Tobias}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Om prejudikat och prejudikattolkning}},
year = {{2011}},
}