Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Svea hovrätts bristande hantering av det konventionsrättsliga besittningsskyddet i artikel 8 EKMR - En problematisering i förhållande till artikel 6(1) EKMR

Banke, Fredrik LU (2021) LAGF03 20212
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
I RH 2014:45 prövade Svea hovrätt för första gången frågan om hur bostadshyresgästers åberopande av rätten till respekt för hemmet enligt artikel 8 EKMR ska hanteras som grund mot uppsägning av ett hyresavtal. Hovrätten konstaterade att en hyresgäst som hyr sin bostad har en mer begränsad rätt till hemmet och föll sedan tillbaka på hyreslagens skälighetsbedömning. Den praxis som etablerades genom RH 2014:45 har följts i samtliga efterföljande fall som hovrätten har tagit upp till prövning och inga hyresgäster har hittills lyckats få till stånd en förlängning av hyresavtalet genom att åberopa artikel 8. Med andra ord har hovrättens beslut baserat på hyreslagens skälighetsbedömning hittills aldrig ändrats på grund av artikel 8.

Denna... (More)
I RH 2014:45 prövade Svea hovrätt för första gången frågan om hur bostadshyresgästers åberopande av rätten till respekt för hemmet enligt artikel 8 EKMR ska hanteras som grund mot uppsägning av ett hyresavtal. Hovrätten konstaterade att en hyresgäst som hyr sin bostad har en mer begränsad rätt till hemmet och föll sedan tillbaka på hyreslagens skälighetsbedömning. Den praxis som etablerades genom RH 2014:45 har följts i samtliga efterföljande fall som hovrätten har tagit upp till prövning och inga hyresgäster har hittills lyckats få till stånd en förlängning av hyresavtalet genom att åberopa artikel 8. Med andra ord har hovrättens beslut baserat på hyreslagens skälighetsbedömning hittills aldrig ändrats på grund av artikel 8.

Denna praxis har kritiserats för att det i bedömningen inte görs en tillåtlighetsprövning av inskränkningen i rätten till respekt för hemmet. Det görs alltså ingen prövning av hyresgästernas situation utifrån Europadomstolens praxis avseende artikel 8. Hyreslagens skälighetsbedömning och tillåtlighetsprövningen i förhållande till artikel 8 kan skilja sig åt vad gäller vilka faktorer som tillmäts betydelse. I praktiken får hyresgästerna inte fallet bedömt i ljuset av artikel 8.

Föreliggande uppsats undersöker huruvida hovrättens nuvarande praxis är förenlig med rätten till en rättvis rättegång enligt artikel 6(1) EKMR. Slutsatsen är att det finns skäl att anta att så inte är fallet på grund av att domskälen inte är tillräckligt motiverade och att besluten i förhållande till artikel 8 kan anses vara godtyckliga. Det finns emellertid en möjlighet att Europadomstolen i praktiken hade bedömt hela förfarandet utifrån artikel 8 och således bortsett från ett åberopande av artikel 6(1) om fallet hade prövats i praktiken. (Less)
Abstract
In RH 2014:45, the Svea Court of Appeal examined for the first time how residential tenants' invocation of the right to respect for their home according to Article 8 ECHR should be assessed as an argument against the termination of a tenancy agreement. The Svea Court of Appeal stated that a tenant who rents his or her home has a limited right to the home and thereafter based the judgement solely on an assessment of reasonableness as stated in the Swedish Tenancy Act. All subsequent cases brought before the Svea Court of Appeal have followed this precedent and no tenants have hitherto succeeded in obtaining an extension of the tenancy agreement by invoking Article 8. In other words, the judgement of the Svea Court of Appeal derived from the... (More)
In RH 2014:45, the Svea Court of Appeal examined for the first time how residential tenants' invocation of the right to respect for their home according to Article 8 ECHR should be assessed as an argument against the termination of a tenancy agreement. The Svea Court of Appeal stated that a tenant who rents his or her home has a limited right to the home and thereafter based the judgement solely on an assessment of reasonableness as stated in the Swedish Tenancy Act. All subsequent cases brought before the Svea Court of Appeal have followed this precedent and no tenants have hitherto succeeded in obtaining an extension of the tenancy agreement by invoking Article 8. In other words, the judgement of the Svea Court of Appeal derived from the assessment of reasonableness as stated in the Swedish Tenancy Act has so far never been changed due to Article 8.

The precedent established through RH 2014:45 has been criticized for not assessing the admissibility of the interference on the right to respect for the home. The situation of the tenants is not assessed based on how the European Court of Human Rights has interpreted Article 8. The assessment of reasonableness as stated in the Swedish Tenancy Act might differ from the assessment of admissibility required by Article 8 as to which factors are given importance. In practice, the tenants do not get their case tried in the light of Article 8.

The present essay examines whether the precedent of the Svea Court of Appeal is compatible with the right to a fair trial under Article 6(1) ECHR. The conclusion is that there is reason to believe that this is not the case because the final judgements are not sufficiently reasoned and that they, in relation to Article 8, can be regarded as arbitrary. However, there is a possibility that the European Court of Human Rights would assess the whole situation solely based on Article 8 and thus disregard an invocation of Article 6(1) if the case had been assessed in practice. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Banke, Fredrik LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20212
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
EU-rätt, processrätt, hyresrätt, hyreslagen, 12 kap. JB, Europakonventionen, EKMR, ECHR, ECtHR, Europadomstolen, artikel 6(1), artikel 8
language
Swedish
id
9069350
date added to LUP
2022-02-15 11:29:58
date last changed
2022-02-15 11:29:58
@misc{9069350,
  abstract     = {{In RH 2014:45, the Svea Court of Appeal examined for the first time how residential tenants' invocation of the right to respect for their home according to Article 8 ECHR should be assessed as an argument against the termination of a tenancy agreement. The Svea Court of Appeal stated that a tenant who rents his or her home has a limited right to the home and thereafter based the judgement solely on an assessment of reasonableness as stated in the Swedish Tenancy Act. All subsequent cases brought before the Svea Court of Appeal have followed this precedent and no tenants have hitherto succeeded in obtaining an extension of the tenancy agreement by invoking Article 8. In other words, the judgement of the Svea Court of Appeal derived from the assessment of reasonableness as stated in the Swedish Tenancy Act has so far never been changed due to Article 8.

The precedent established through RH 2014:45 has been criticized for not assessing the admissibility of the interference on the right to respect for the home. The situation of the tenants is not assessed based on how the European Court of Human Rights has interpreted Article 8. The assessment of reasonableness as stated in the Swedish Tenancy Act might differ from the assessment of admissibility required by Article 8 as to which factors are given importance. In practice, the tenants do not get their case tried in the light of Article 8.

The present essay examines whether the precedent of the Svea Court of Appeal is compatible with the right to a fair trial under Article 6(1) ECHR. The conclusion is that there is reason to believe that this is not the case because the final judgements are not sufficiently reasoned and that they, in relation to Article 8, can be regarded as arbitrary. However, there is a possibility that the European Court of Human Rights would assess the whole situation solely based on Article 8 and thus disregard an invocation of Article 6(1) if the case had been assessed in practice.}},
  author       = {{Banke, Fredrik}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Svea hovrätts bristande hantering av det konventionsrättsliga besittningsskyddet i artikel 8 EKMR - En problematisering i förhållande till artikel 6(1) EKMR}},
  year         = {{2021}},
}