Advanced

Oseriösa anspråk - när man inte har rätt att få sin talan prövad

BarDavid, David (2008)
Department of Law
Abstract
One of the basic principles of Swedish law is that everyone is entitled to have his/her claims determined by a court and that the judgment should be given after a hearing. The main rule is that the plaintiff can claim whatever he/she wants, even if it seems absurd. This is a right also given by the European Convention of the human rights article 6:1, which says that everyone is entitled to a public hearing by a court. In this essay the exceptions are dealt with - when a person is not entitled to have his/her claims determined by the court. Firstly, this essay will deal with the issue of different prohibited claims. This is to help the reader to distinguish these issues from the main issues that come secondly. The main issues deal with... (More)
One of the basic principles of Swedish law is that everyone is entitled to have his/her claims determined by a court and that the judgment should be given after a hearing. The main rule is that the plaintiff can claim whatever he/she wants, even if it seems absurd. This is a right also given by the European Convention of the human rights article 6:1, which says that everyone is entitled to a public hearing by a court. In this essay the exceptions are dealt with - when a person is not entitled to have his/her claims determined by the court. Firstly, this essay will deal with the issue of different prohibited claims. This is to help the reader to distinguish these issues from the main issues that come secondly. The main issues deal with immediate dismissal because of evidently groundless claims and dismissal of claims because they are contrary to law or against public policy (pactum turpe). Lack of standing is a compulsory procedural hindrance. An action with a lack of standing is to be dismissed. Another procedural hindrance is an agreement of arbitration. The Swedish Act of Damages 3rd chapter article 7 prohibits action against the state because of decision made by the government, the Swedish Parliament, the Supreme Court or the Supreme Administrative Court. Actions against states, diplomats and others enjoying immunity are also to be dismissed. The court has a possibility to immediately dismiss an action without issuing summons if the claims do not comprise legal reason or if it is otherwise obvious that the claims are obviously unfounded, according to the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure (RB) 42nd chapter article 5. Generally there is a strong presumption to issue the summons. The whole action has to be unfounded if the provision is to be applied. In case when a default judgment is issued against the defendant according to RB 44th chapter article 8, the plaintiff's stance is to be taken for granted if it is not contrary to what is generally known. An appeal can also be dismissed immediately without being issued if it is obviously unfounded. The rules are similar to RB 42nd chapter article 5. Even if the court has issued an appeal it could still be dismissed if the court later finds it obviously unfounded. An agreement has to be in compliance with public policy to be sanctioned by the legal system. This derives from fundamental legal principles. It is for the courts to decide if a specific agreement is void. It doesn't necessarily mean that the agreement lacks all legal consequences just because it is void. To dismiss claims because of an agreement contrary to law or against public policy is motivated by a public interest of nullity character. Such a situation should therefore be regarded ex officio by the court. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
BarDavid, David
supervisor
organization
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Processrätt
language
Swedish
id
1556015
date added to LUP
2010-03-08 15:55:19
date last changed
2010-03-08 15:55:19
@misc{1556015,
  abstract     = {One of the basic principles of Swedish law is that everyone is entitled to have his/her claims determined by a court and that the judgment should be given after a hearing. The main rule is that the plaintiff can claim whatever he/she wants, even if it seems absurd. This is a right also given by the European Convention of the human rights article 6:1, which says that everyone is entitled to a public hearing by a court. In this essay the exceptions are dealt with - when a person is not entitled to have his/her claims determined by the court. Firstly, this essay will deal with the issue of different prohibited claims. This is to help the reader to distinguish these issues from the main issues that come secondly. The main issues deal with immediate dismissal because of evidently groundless claims and dismissal of claims because they are contrary to law or against public policy (pactum turpe). Lack of standing is a compulsory procedural hindrance. An action with a lack of standing is to be dismissed. Another procedural hindrance is an agreement of arbitration. The Swedish Act of Damages 3rd chapter article 7 prohibits action against the state because of decision made by the government, the Swedish Parliament, the Supreme Court or the Supreme Administrative Court. Actions against states, diplomats and others enjoying immunity are also to be dismissed. The court has a possibility to immediately dismiss an action without issuing summons if the claims do not comprise legal reason or if it is otherwise obvious that the claims are obviously unfounded, according to the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure (RB) 42nd chapter article 5. Generally there is a strong presumption to issue the summons. The whole action has to be unfounded if the provision is to be applied. In case when a default judgment is issued against the defendant according to RB 44th chapter article 8, the plaintiff's stance is to be taken for granted if it is not contrary to what is generally known. An appeal can also be dismissed immediately without being issued if it is obviously unfounded. The rules are similar to RB 42nd chapter article 5. Even if the court has issued an appeal it could still be dismissed if the court later finds it obviously unfounded. An agreement has to be in compliance with public policy to be sanctioned by the legal system. This derives from fundamental legal principles. It is for the courts to decide if a specific agreement is void. It doesn't necessarily mean that the agreement lacks all legal consequences just because it is void. To dismiss claims because of an agreement contrary to law or against public policy is motivated by a public interest of nullity character. Such a situation should therefore be regarded ex officio by the court.},
  author       = {BarDavid, David},
  keyword      = {Processrätt},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Oseriösa anspråk - när man inte har rätt att få sin talan prövad},
  year         = {2008},
}