Brottsprovokation - Förslag till lag (2027:000) om särskilda provokativa åtgärder och rätten till en rättvis rättegång
(2026) LAGF03 20261Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Brottsprovokation är en arbetsmetod som används av brottsbekämpande myndigheter för att utreda brott. Provokation har beskrivits som åtgärder där myndigheter försöker påverka eller förmå en person att handla eller uttrycka sig på ett sätt som kan leda till negativa följder för personen själv eller för personer i dennes närhet. I Sverige saknas idag en reglering av användningen av provokativa åtgärder. År 2025 presenterades dock ett förslag till lag (2027:000) om särskilda provokativa åtgärder. Förslaget reglerar användningen av provokativa åtgärder som kan leda till att någon förmås att begå ett brott.
Användningen av provokativa åtgärder aktualiserar frågan om rätten till en rättvis rättegång enligt artikel 6 i Europakonventionen.... (More) - Brottsprovokation är en arbetsmetod som används av brottsbekämpande myndigheter för att utreda brott. Provokation har beskrivits som åtgärder där myndigheter försöker påverka eller förmå en person att handla eller uttrycka sig på ett sätt som kan leda till negativa följder för personen själv eller för personer i dennes närhet. I Sverige saknas idag en reglering av användningen av provokativa åtgärder. År 2025 presenterades dock ett förslag till lag (2027:000) om särskilda provokativa åtgärder. Förslaget reglerar användningen av provokativa åtgärder som kan leda till att någon förmås att begå ett brott.
Användningen av provokativa åtgärder aktualiserar frågan om rätten till en rättvis rättegång enligt artikel 6 i Europakonventionen. Brottsprovokation kan nämligen medföra en risk för att den enskildes rätt till en rättvis rättegång
kränks. Eftersom Europakonventionen gäller som svensk lag är Sverige skyldigt att garantera de fri- och rättigheter som följer av konventionen. När Europadomstolen ska bedöma om rätten till en rättvis rättegång har åsidosatts i mål där provokation förekommit görs en prövning i två steg. Uppsatsen fokuserar på det första steget, det så kallade substantiella testet, där domstolen prövar om en otillåten provokation har förekommit. I det andra steget bedöms om den tilltalade getts möjlighet att framföra en invändning om provokationen inför de nationella domstolarna.
I praxis har ett antal principer och relevanta omständigheter etablerats som beaktas vid bedömningen av om brottsprovokation har förekommit. Uppsatsen utreder om lagförslagets reglering av provokativa åtgärder är förenlig med de principer för användning av brottsprovokation som utvecklats i praxis. I uppsatsen undersöks även om en rättegång som helhet kan anses vara rättvis när särskilda provokativa åtgärder har använts.
I uppsatsen behandlas rättsfall från Europadomstolen och Högsta domstolen. Rättsfallen visar att en otillåten provokation föreligger när myndigheter inte har bedrivit utredningen på ett i huvudsak passivt sätt. I stället har de utövat ett sådant inflytande över den enskilde att denne provocerats att begå ett brott som annars inte skulle ha begåtts. Vid bedömningen beaktas bland annat om det funnits objektiva misstankar om att den provocerade varit involverad i brottslig verksamhet, om personen visat benägenhet att begå brott samt om åtgärderna har övervakats av en behörig myndighet. Lagförslaget uppställer bland annat krav på inledd förundersökning, skälig misstanke och att beslut om särskilda provokativa åtgärder fattas av åklagare. Analysen visar att lagförslagets reglering i relativt stor utsträckning överensstämmer med Europadomstolens praxis. Kraven bedöms dock inte vara tillräckliga för att i praktiken säkerställa att enskildas rätt till en rättvis rättegång inte kränks. (Less) - Abstract
- Entrapment is an investigative method used by law enforcement authorities. It can be described as measures through which authorities try to influence or induce a person to act or express themselves in a way that may result in negative consequences for that person or people close to them. Swedish law currently lacks a statutory regulation of the use of these investigative measures. In 2025, a legislative proposal was presented for a new act on special provocative measures (2027:000). The proposed legislation regulates the use of investigative measures that may result in a person committing a crime.
The use of provocative measures raises questions concerning the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human... (More) - Entrapment is an investigative method used by law enforcement authorities. It can be described as measures through which authorities try to influence or induce a person to act or express themselves in a way that may result in negative consequences for that person or people close to them. Swedish law currently lacks a statutory regulation of the use of these investigative measures. In 2025, a legislative proposal was presented for a new act on special provocative measures (2027:000). The proposed legislation regulates the use of investigative measures that may result in a person committing a crime.
The use of provocative measures raises questions concerning the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Provocative measures can create a risk that an individual´s right to a fair trial is violated. Since the ECHR is a part of Swedish law, Sweden is obliged to guarantee the rights and freedoms protected by the Convention. In order to determine whether the right to a fair trial was respected in a case involving provocation, the European Court of Human Rights does a two-step test. This thesis focuses on the first stage, referred to as the substantive test of incitement, where the Court examines whether entrapment has occured. At the second stage, the Court examines whether the accused has been given an opportunity to raise the issue of provocation before the national courts.
Through case law, a number of circumstances and principles have been established that are considered when assessing whether entrapment has occurred. The thesis analyses whether the proposed regulation of special provocative measures is compatible with the principles established in case law. Furthermore, the thesis examines whether the trial can be considered fair when special provocative measures have been used.
The cases examined from the European Court of Human Rights and the Swedish Supreme Court demonstrate that entrapment, or unlawful provocation, arises when authorities have not conducted the investigation in an essentially passive manner. Instead, they have exercised such influence over the individual that they induce a crime that would otherwise not have been committed. In deciding whether the investigation was “essentially passive” the Court considers factors such as whether there were objective suspicions that the individual had been involved in criminal activity, whether the person had shown a tendency to commit crimes, and whether the measures have been supervised by a competent authority. The legislative proposal includes requirements such as the initiation of a preliminary investigation, reasonable suspicion, and that decisions concerning special provocative measures be taken by a public prosecutor. The analysis concludes that the proposed legislation is, to a relatively large extent, consistent with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. However, the safeguards in the proposal do not appear sufficient in practice to fully ensure that individuals’ right to a fair trial is protected. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9228191
- author
- Persson, Agnes LU
- supervisor
-
- Karol Nowak LU
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20261
- year
- 2026
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Straffrätt, Rättssäkerhet, Brottsprovokation
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9228191
- date added to LUP
- 2026-08-25 15:06:46
- date last changed
- 2026-08-25 15:06:46
@misc{9228191,
abstract = {{Entrapment is an investigative method used by law enforcement authorities. It can be described as measures through which authorities try to influence or induce a person to act or express themselves in a way that may result in negative consequences for that person or people close to them. Swedish law currently lacks a statutory regulation of the use of these investigative measures. In 2025, a legislative proposal was presented for a new act on special provocative measures (2027:000). The proposed legislation regulates the use of investigative measures that may result in a person committing a crime.
The use of provocative measures raises questions concerning the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Provocative measures can create a risk that an individual´s right to a fair trial is violated. Since the ECHR is a part of Swedish law, Sweden is obliged to guarantee the rights and freedoms protected by the Convention. In order to determine whether the right to a fair trial was respected in a case involving provocation, the European Court of Human Rights does a two-step test. This thesis focuses on the first stage, referred to as the substantive test of incitement, where the Court examines whether entrapment has occured. At the second stage, the Court examines whether the accused has been given an opportunity to raise the issue of provocation before the national courts.
Through case law, a number of circumstances and principles have been established that are considered when assessing whether entrapment has occurred. The thesis analyses whether the proposed regulation of special provocative measures is compatible with the principles established in case law. Furthermore, the thesis examines whether the trial can be considered fair when special provocative measures have been used.
The cases examined from the European Court of Human Rights and the Swedish Supreme Court demonstrate that entrapment, or unlawful provocation, arises when authorities have not conducted the investigation in an essentially passive manner. Instead, they have exercised such influence over the individual that they induce a crime that would otherwise not have been committed. In deciding whether the investigation was “essentially passive” the Court considers factors such as whether there were objective suspicions that the individual had been involved in criminal activity, whether the person had shown a tendency to commit crimes, and whether the measures have been supervised by a competent authority. The legislative proposal includes requirements such as the initiation of a preliminary investigation, reasonable suspicion, and that decisions concerning special provocative measures be taken by a public prosecutor. The analysis concludes that the proposed legislation is, to a relatively large extent, consistent with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. However, the safeguards in the proposal do not appear sufficient in practice to fully ensure that individuals’ right to a fair trial is protected.}},
author = {{Persson, Agnes}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Brottsprovokation - Förslag till lag (2027:000) om särskilda provokativa åtgärder och rätten till en rättvis rättegång}},
year = {{2026}},
}