Fälld fast friad? – Om förhållandena mellan straffrättsligt ansvar, enskilda anspråk och Europakonventionens oskyldighetspresumtion
(2020) LAGF03 20201Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- När en brottslig gärning begås uppstår ofta även civilrättsliga anspråk av olika slag. Sådana anspråk kan kumuleras med en ansvarstalan, vilket innebär att frågorna avhandlas i samma mål. Den för uppsatsen relevanta frågan är om det utifrån svensk processrätt och Europakonventionen är möjligt att en ansvarstalan ogillas, men att det kumulerade anspråket ändå bifalls. Samtidigt väcks också frågor om hur den tilltalades intressen inom brottmålsprocessen påverkas av rätten.
För svensk rätt innebär i detta avseende regeln i 29 kap. 6 § tredje meningen RB en kraftig inskränkning av möjligheterna att ogilla en ansvarstalan men bifalla ett kumulerat enskilt anspråk. Regeln innebär att det som utgångs¬punkt skall föreligga bundenhet mellan... (More) - När en brottslig gärning begås uppstår ofta även civilrättsliga anspråk av olika slag. Sådana anspråk kan kumuleras med en ansvarstalan, vilket innebär att frågorna avhandlas i samma mål. Den för uppsatsen relevanta frågan är om det utifrån svensk processrätt och Europakonventionen är möjligt att en ansvarstalan ogillas, men att det kumulerade anspråket ändå bifalls. Samtidigt väcks också frågor om hur den tilltalades intressen inom brottmålsprocessen påverkas av rätten.
För svensk rätt innebär i detta avseende regeln i 29 kap. 6 § tredje meningen RB en kraftig inskränkning av möjligheterna att ogilla en ansvarstalan men bifalla ett kumulerat enskilt anspråk. Regeln innebär att det som utgångs¬punkt skall föreligga bundenhet mellan utgången i det straffrättsliga målet och det civilrättsliga målet. Regeln är dock behäftad med vissa undantag som innebär att det ibland kan uppstå en situation där en civilrättslig talan bifalls även om ansvarstalan ogillas.
Europadomstolen har beträffande civilrättsliga anspråk vid en ogillad straffrättslig talan närmat sig dessa frågor utifrån oskyldighetspresumtionen som fastslås i art. 6.2 Europakonventionen. Europadomstolen har inte funnit att ett åläggande av civilrättsligt ansvar utifrån ett lägre beviskrav per se utgör en kränkning av oskyldighetspresumtionen. Däremot kränks oskyldig¬hets-presumtionen om domskälen i det civilrättsliga avgörandet tillskriver den tilltalade straffrättslig skuld. Detta kan antingen ske genom att den nationella domstolen uttryckligen fastslår att den tilltalade har begått brott utifrån det lägre beviskravet, eller om domskälen täcker in samtliga rekvisit för straffrättsligt ansvar.
Slutsatserna som dras är att svensk processrätt innebär ett skydd för den tilltalades intressen genom att ett frikännande i brottmålsdelen i många fall inte kan följas av civilrättsligt ansvar när målen är kumulerade. Europa¬domstolens avgöranden ger upphov till viktiga principer som en rättstillämpare måste förhålla sig till, men kritiseras också eftersom de innebär konsekvenser för den tilltalades intressen då de nationella domstolarna tillåts använda ett problematiskt språk i viss utsträckning. (Less) - Abstract
- A criminal act might also result in different kinds of private claims. Such claims can be joined with and tried alongside the question of criminal quilt. The pertinent question is if it is in accordance with Swedish procedural law and the European Convention of Human Rights to acquit a defendant yet still find the defendant liable regarding a private claim. This also gives rise to other questions, such as how the interests of the defendant within the criminal procedure are affected by the law.
Concerning Swedish law Chapter 29 Section 6 in fine of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure amounts to a restriction of the possibility to acquit the defendant yet still find him liable for a private claim. The law’s point of departure is that... (More) - A criminal act might also result in different kinds of private claims. Such claims can be joined with and tried alongside the question of criminal quilt. The pertinent question is if it is in accordance with Swedish procedural law and the European Convention of Human Rights to acquit a defendant yet still find the defendant liable regarding a private claim. This also gives rise to other questions, such as how the interests of the defendant within the criminal procedure are affected by the law.
Concerning Swedish law Chapter 29 Section 6 in fine of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure amounts to a restriction of the possibility to acquit the defendant yet still find him liable for a private claim. The law’s point of departure is that the court's finding of criminal liability is binding for the adjudication of the private claim. There are nonetheless some exceptions to the rule, which means that it sometimes is possible to find the defendant liable regarding a private claim even though he is acquitted.
The European Court of Human Rights has approached questions regarding civil liability following an acquittal from the presumption of innocence enshrined in article 6.2 of the European Convention of Human Rights. The Court has not found that the establishment of civil liability on the basis of a lower standard of proof per se entails a violation of the presumption of innocence. There is however a violation of the presumption of innocence if the ruling on the private claim imputes criminal liability upon the defendant. This can occur if the national court explicitly states that the defendant has committed the offence(s) based on a lower standard of proof, or if the court’s reasoning regarding the private claim covers the constitutive elements of the offence.
The conclusions drawn are that Swedish procedural law protects the interests of the defendant since an acquittal in many cases cannot be followed by an establishment of civil liability when the cases are joined. The European Court of Human Rights’ decisions establishes important principles that need to be considered by adjudicators but are also criticised because they entail ramifications for the defendant as they allow for the usage of some problematic language by national courts. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9010446
- author
- Söderberg, Julius LU
- supervisor
-
- Jacob Öberg LU
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20201
- year
- 2020
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- processrätt, criminal procedure, enskilt anspråk, oskyldighetspresumtionen, oskuldspresumtionen, europakonventionen
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9010446
- date added to LUP
- 2020-09-17 13:40:54
- date last changed
- 2020-09-17 13:40:54
@misc{9010446,
abstract = {{A criminal act might also result in different kinds of private claims. Such claims can be joined with and tried alongside the question of criminal quilt. The pertinent question is if it is in accordance with Swedish procedural law and the European Convention of Human Rights to acquit a defendant yet still find the defendant liable regarding a private claim. This also gives rise to other questions, such as how the interests of the defendant within the criminal procedure are affected by the law.
Concerning Swedish law Chapter 29 Section 6 in fine of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure amounts to a restriction of the possibility to acquit the defendant yet still find him liable for a private claim. The law’s point of departure is that the court's finding of criminal liability is binding for the adjudication of the private claim. There are nonetheless some exceptions to the rule, which means that it sometimes is possible to find the defendant liable regarding a private claim even though he is acquitted.
The European Court of Human Rights has approached questions regarding civil liability following an acquittal from the presumption of innocence enshrined in article 6.2 of the European Convention of Human Rights. The Court has not found that the establishment of civil liability on the basis of a lower standard of proof per se entails a violation of the presumption of innocence. There is however a violation of the presumption of innocence if the ruling on the private claim imputes criminal liability upon the defendant. This can occur if the national court explicitly states that the defendant has committed the offence(s) based on a lower standard of proof, or if the court’s reasoning regarding the private claim covers the constitutive elements of the offence.
The conclusions drawn are that Swedish procedural law protects the interests of the defendant since an acquittal in many cases cannot be followed by an establishment of civil liability when the cases are joined. The European Court of Human Rights’ decisions establishes important principles that need to be considered by adjudicators but are also criticised because they entail ramifications for the defendant as they allow for the usage of some problematic language by national courts.}},
author = {{Söderberg, Julius}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Fälld fast friad? – Om förhållandena mellan straffrättsligt ansvar, enskilda anspråk och Europakonventionens oskyldighetspresumtion}},
year = {{2020}},
}