Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Överviktsprincipens vara i svensk rätt? - En studie av ett alternativ till bevisbördereglerna ur ett rättssäkerhetsperspektiv

Westberg, Erik LU (2016) LAGF03 20161
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
I många tvistemålsrättegångar råder osäkerhet om ett rättsfaktum föreligger eller inte. Det kan exempelvis röra sig om att domaren inte vet om en betalning skett eller ej. Domaren kan inte avstå från att avgöra målet. Ofta tas förgivet att just en bevisbörderegel ska användas, även fast överviktsprincipen är ett alternativ. Rättssäkerhet är en grundbult i en fungerande rättsstat. Bör då inte den lösning som ur rättssäkerhetssynpunkt är den främsta vara huvudregel? Syftet med denna uppsats är därför att kritiskt granska den svenska ordningen, genom att utreda om överviktsprincipen kan tillämpas inom ramen för den nuvarande ordningen och om principen bör tillämpas ur ett rättssäkerhetsperspektiv.

Den generella uppfattningen i svensk rätt... (More)
I många tvistemålsrättegångar råder osäkerhet om ett rättsfaktum föreligger eller inte. Det kan exempelvis röra sig om att domaren inte vet om en betalning skett eller ej. Domaren kan inte avstå från att avgöra målet. Ofta tas förgivet att just en bevisbörderegel ska användas, även fast överviktsprincipen är ett alternativ. Rättssäkerhet är en grundbult i en fungerande rättsstat. Bör då inte den lösning som ur rättssäkerhetssynpunkt är den främsta vara huvudregel? Syftet med denna uppsats är därför att kritiskt granska den svenska ordningen, genom att utreda om överviktsprincipen kan tillämpas inom ramen för den nuvarande ordningen och om principen bör tillämpas ur ett rättssäkerhetsperspektiv.

Den generella uppfattningen i svensk rätt är att osäkerheten om ett rättsfaktums existens ska lösas genom en bevisbörderegel. Vilken av parterna som ska åläggas bevisbördan är inte på det generella planet reglerad i lag. Ofta söks svar i generella principer utbildande i doktrin. Normalt måste beviskravet styrkt uppnås, det finns dock flera undantag. Den svenska ordningen bestod tidigare av legal bevisteori och en bestämmelse om hur bevisbördan skulle fördelas mellan parterna. Artikel 6 EKMR ställer vissa rättssäkerhetskrav på den svenska processordningen. Mest centralt är att parterna ska behandlas lika och att ena parten ska gynnas på den andres bekostnad.

Överviktsprincipen innebär att den av parternas version som är mest sannolik läggs till grund för domen. Vid en tillämpning av överviktsprincipen åläggs ingen av parterna någon bevisbörda. Överviktsprincipen tillämpas i Norge som normalkrav i tvistemål. De främsta argumenten för en tillämpning av principen är den leder till flest materiellt riktiga domar och att den likabehandlar parterna. Argument emot en tillämpning är att domstolen inte bör grunda ett avgörande på en så låg sannolikhet som principen kan medföra och att den leder till fler materiellt oriktiga domar.

Utredningen visar att det inte finns något hinder mot en tillämpning av överviktsprincipen i den svenska ordningen. Det finns dessutom stöd för tillämpningen av principen i doktrin, praxis och förarbeten. Slutsatsen är att det är möjligt att tillämpa överviktsprincipen inom ramen för gällande rätt. Av utredningen framgår även att överviktsprincipen är mer förutsägbar, likabehandlar i större uträckning och leder till flest materiellt riktiga domar i förhållande till dagens ordning. Slutsatsen är därför att överviktsprincipen ur ett rättssäkerhetsperspektiv bör tillämpas framför dagens ordning. (Less)
Abstract
In many civil lawsuits, there is an uncertainty regarding it is unclear whether a fact is valid or not. For example the judge is might be unaware whether payment has been sent or not. The judge cannot, however, choose to omit to resolve the case. It is often taken for granted that the burden of proof principle should be used, even though the rule of preponderance of evidence also is an alternative. The rule of law is the main foundation of a functioning constitutional state. Should this not mean that the principle most appropriate according to the rule of law should be used as a general rule? The purpose of this paper is to critically review the Swedish system, by evaluating whether the rule of preponderance of evidence could be applied... (More)
In many civil lawsuits, there is an uncertainty regarding it is unclear whether a fact is valid or not. For example the judge is might be unaware whether payment has been sent or not. The judge cannot, however, choose to omit to resolve the case. It is often taken for granted that the burden of proof principle should be used, even though the rule of preponderance of evidence also is an alternative. The rule of law is the main foundation of a functioning constitutional state. Should this not mean that the principle most appropriate according to the rule of law should be used as a general rule? The purpose of this paper is to critically review the Swedish system, by evaluating whether the rule of preponderance of evidence could be applied within the current legal order, and if the rule should be applied from a rule of law perspective.

The general view within the Swedish system is that, the uncertainty regarding a fact’s existence should be solved by the burden of proof principle. It is not regulated in the law on a general level which of the parties should carry the burden of proof. Answers are often sought through general principles educated by doctrine. Normally a high standard of proof must be reached, even though there are exceptions to this rule. The Swedish system previously consisted of the doctrine of legal evidence, and an arrangement regarding how the burden of proof should be divided among the parties. Article 6 European Convention on Human Rights places certain demands concerning legal certainty on the Swedish rules of procedure. The most fundamental aspects of this are the principle of equal treatment, and the rule that one party should not profit at the expense of another.

The rule of preponderance of evidence means that the most believable version of the two parties will lay the foundation for the judgment. When using the the rule of preponderance of evidence, no burden of proof is inflicted on either party. The rule is used in Norway as a general rule in civil disputes. The main arguments for applying the rule of preponderance of evidence is that it leads to materially accurate judgments, and that the parties are treated equally. Arguments against the application are that the court should not base a judgment on such a low probability that the rule might bring, and that it leads to more factually inaccurate judgments.

The investigation shows that there is no obstacle against the application of the rule of preponderance of evidence in the current Swedish legal order. Moreover there is support for the application of the rule in doctrine, law practice and the preparatory works. In conclusion, it is possible to adapt the rule of preponderance of evidence within the Swedish legal order. Within this paper, it has also been shown that the rule of preponderance of evidence is more predictable regarding equal treatment, and it leads to more materially correct judgments when compared to today’s order. The final conclusion is therefore that from a rule of law perspective, the rule of preponderance of evidence should be applied instead of the current system. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Westberg, Erik LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20161
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
processrätt, civil procedure, överviktsprincipen, bevisbörda
language
Swedish
id
8874250
date added to LUP
2016-07-04 09:29:55
date last changed
2016-07-04 09:29:55
@misc{8874250,
  abstract     = {{In many civil lawsuits, there is an uncertainty regarding it is unclear whether a fact is valid or not. For example the judge is might be unaware whether payment has been sent or not. The judge cannot, however, choose to omit to resolve the case. It is often taken for granted that the burden of proof principle should be used, even though the rule of preponderance of evidence also is an alternative. The rule of law is the main foundation of a functioning constitutional state. Should this not mean that the principle most appropriate according to the rule of law should be used as a general rule? The purpose of this paper is to critically review the Swedish system, by evaluating whether the rule of preponderance of evidence could be applied within the current legal order, and if the rule should be applied from a rule of law perspective. 

The general view within the Swedish system is that, the uncertainty regarding a fact’s existence should be solved by the burden of proof principle. It is not regulated in the law on a general level which of the parties should carry the burden of proof. Answers are often sought through general principles educated by doctrine. Normally a high standard of proof must be reached, even though there are exceptions to this rule. The Swedish system previously consisted of the doctrine of legal evidence, and an arrangement regarding how the burden of proof should be divided among the parties. Article 6 European Convention on Human Rights places certain demands concerning legal certainty on the Swedish rules of procedure. The most fundamental aspects of this are the principle of equal treatment, and the rule that one party should not profit at the expense of another. 

The rule of preponderance of evidence means that the most believable version of the two parties will lay the foundation for the judgment. When using the the rule of preponderance of evidence, no burden of proof is inflicted on either party. The rule is used in Norway as a general rule in civil disputes. The main arguments for applying the rule of preponderance of evidence is that it leads to materially accurate judgments, and that the parties are treated equally. Arguments against the application are that the court should not base a judgment on such a low probability that the rule might bring, and that it leads to more factually inaccurate judgments. 

The investigation shows that there is no obstacle against the application of the rule of preponderance of evidence in the current Swedish legal order. Moreover there is support for the application of the rule in doctrine, law practice and the preparatory works. In conclusion, it is possible to adapt the rule of preponderance of evidence within the Swedish legal order. Within this paper, it has also been shown that the rule of preponderance of evidence is more predictable regarding equal treatment, and it leads to more materially correct judgments when compared to today’s order. The final conclusion is therefore that from a rule of law perspective, the rule of preponderance of evidence should be applied instead of the current system.}},
  author       = {{Westberg, Erik}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Överviktsprincipens vara i svensk rätt? - En studie av ett alternativ till bevisbördereglerna ur ett rättssäkerhetsperspektiv}},
  year         = {{2016}},
}