Advanced

Parternas likställdhet i processen - om principens upprätthållande i svensk brottmålsprocess

Södergren, Anna LU (2010) JURM01 20101
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Artikel 6 i Europakonventionen för de mänskliga rättigheterna stadgar en rätt till en rättvis rättegång. Ett av de många drag som utmärker en rättvis rättegång är likställdhet mellan parterna. I denna uppsats undersöks innebörden av principen om parternas likställdhet och huruvida den svenska brottmålsprocessen tillgodoser de rättigheter som uppställs i Europa-konventionen.

Principen om parternas likställdhet innebär att vardera part ska få en rimlig möjlighet att presentera sitt fall under förutsättningar som inte försätter parten i sämre läge än motparten. Det ska råda balans mellan parterna och ingen får gynnas på den andres bekostnad. I brottmål anses åklagaren vara den starkare av parterna då denne, till skillnad från den... (More)
Artikel 6 i Europakonventionen för de mänskliga rättigheterna stadgar en rätt till en rättvis rättegång. Ett av de många drag som utmärker en rättvis rättegång är likställdhet mellan parterna. I denna uppsats undersöks innebörden av principen om parternas likställdhet och huruvida den svenska brottmålsprocessen tillgodoser de rättigheter som uppställs i Europa-konventionen.

Principen om parternas likställdhet innebär att vardera part ska få en rimlig möjlighet att presentera sitt fall under förutsättningar som inte försätter parten i sämre läge än motparten. Det ska råda balans mellan parterna och ingen får gynnas på den andres bekostnad. I brottmål anses åklagaren vara den starkare av parterna då denne, till skillnad från den tilltalade, har tillgång till myndighetens utredningsresurser. För att utjämna den olikställdhet som råder mellan parterna används olika bestämmelser och principer i processen. De möjligheter till utjämning som står till förfogande enligt Europakonventionen är bl.a. oskyldighetspresumtionen, rätten till ett kontradiktoriskt förfarande och rätten till ett effektivt försvar och försvarare. I uppsatsen utreds innebörden av dessa sätt att utjämna olikställdheten och om de kommer till uttryck i den svenska brottmålsprocessen. Vid undersökningen av om de svenska bestämmelserna tillgodoser Europa¬konventionens rättigheter tas i uppsatsen hänsyn både till hur de svenska bestämmelserna ser ut i teorin och hur de tillämpas i praktiken.

Den svenska brottmålsprocessen präglas i mångt och mycket av ett kontradiktoriskt förfarande. En misstänkt har exempelvis rätt att löpande ta del av utredningen om det kan ske utan men för utredningen, rätt att ta del av allt utredningsmaterial vid slutdelgivningen och rätt att förhöra vittnen. Rättegångsbalkens reglering vad gäller insyn under rättegången är emellertid oklar och det råder delade meningar hur långt insynsrätten sträcker sig. Vidare har den misstänkte/tilltalade rätt till en försvarare som ska utföra uppdraget på ett tillfredställande sätt. För att kunna avgöra om de svenska bestämmelserna är förenliga med Europakonventionen diskuteras i uppsatsen hur Europakonventionens rättigheter kan tolkas. Utöver de sätt att utjämna olikställdheten som återfinns i Europakonventionen, uppställer svensk rätt fler möjligheter. Åklagaren är underställd en objektivitetsplikt som innebär att den misstänktes eller tilltalades intressen ska tillgodoses och försvaret kan begära komplettering av förundersökningen. Därutöver ska domaren i vissa fall företa materiell processledning.

Vid en jämförelse mellan Europakonventionens rättigheter och den svenska brottmålsprocessens utformning blir slutsatsen att Europakonventionens rättigheter tillgodoses i många, men inte alla, avseenden. Europa-konventionens bestämmelser kan tolkas på olika sätt och den svenska brottmåls¬processens förenlighet med konventionen beror på hur tolkningen görs. Dessutom är även de svenska bestämmelserna till viss del oklara. Trots att det enligt svensk rätt finns fler möjligheter till utjämning av olikställdheten än vad som krävs enligt Europakonventionen, blir parterna inte likställda i processen då de sätt som avser utjämna olikställdheten inte är effektiva i praktiken. (Less)
Abstract
According to article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, everyone charged with a criminal offence is entitled to a fair hearing. One of the many features characteristic of a fair hearing is equality of arms between the parties. In this essay, the meaning of the principle of equality of arms is analysed. It is also investigated if the Swedish criminal procedure is in conformity with the principle.

The principle of equality of arms requires each party to be given a reasonable opportunity to present his case under conditions that do not place him at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis his opponent. The principle incorporates the idea of balance between the parties. In criminal proceedings, the prosecutor is the stronger party... (More)
According to article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, everyone charged with a criminal offence is entitled to a fair hearing. One of the many features characteristic of a fair hearing is equality of arms between the parties. In this essay, the meaning of the principle of equality of arms is analysed. It is also investigated if the Swedish criminal procedure is in conformity with the principle.

The principle of equality of arms requires each party to be given a reasonable opportunity to present his case under conditions that do not place him at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis his opponent. The principle incorporates the idea of balance between the parties. In criminal proceedings, the prosecutor is the stronger party since the prosecutor, unlike the accused, has access to the authority’s investigative resources. To equalize the inequality between the prosecutor and the accused, certain principles and rules in favour of the accused are used in the proceeding. The principles and rights set out in the European Convention are among others the presumption of innocence, the right to an adversarial process and the right to defence. The meanings of these rights are further analysed in this essay and it is also investigated if they are met in the Swedish criminal procedure. When investigating whether the Swedish principles and rules are in conformity with the rights set out in the European Convention, consideration has been taken to how the principles and rules are formulated as well as how they are applied in practise.

The Swedish criminal procedure is characterized by an adversarial process. A suspect or an accused has the right to continuously acquaint himself with the investigation material if it can be done without detriment to the investigation. By the final notification, the suspect/accused has the right to have all of the investigative material disclosed to him. There is also a right to cross-examine witnesses during the proceeding. However, the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure does not clearly outline the right to disclosure during the proceeding and opinions differ about how far-reaching the right actually is. Moreover, the suspect/accused is also entitled to a defence counsel who must perform his duties in a satisfying way. To be able to determine whether these Swedish rules are in conformity with the European Convention, is it discussed in this essay how the rights in the European Convention can be interpreted. In addition to the different ways of equalizing the inequality between the parties set out in the Convention, Swedish law offers a few more possibilities. The prosecutor must consider the principle of objectivity and therefore needs to take the suspect’s interests into consideration during the investigation and proceeding. The defence also has the right to request completion of the preliminary investigation and the judge has the possibility to interfere during the proceeding in favour of the accused.

After the comparison between the rights set out in the European Convention and Swedish criminal procedure, the conclusion in this essay is that the rights are respected in many, but not all, respects. The rights of the European Convention can be interpreted in different ways and the conformity between the Swedish criminal procedure and the rights in the European Convention depends upon the out-come of the interpretation. The meaning of some of the Swedish rules is also unclear. Even though Swedish law offers more ways of equalizing the inequality between the parties than is set out in the European Convention, the relationship is still not equalized. This is due to the ineffectiveness in which these ways to equalize are practised. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Södergren, Anna LU
supervisor
organization
course
JURM01 20101
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Processrätt
language
Swedish
id
1628030
date added to LUP
2010-07-13 11:45:15
date last changed
2010-07-13 11:45:15
@misc{1628030,
  abstract     = {According to article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, everyone charged with a criminal offence is entitled to a fair hearing. One of the many features characteristic of a fair hearing is equality of arms between the parties. In this essay, the meaning of the principle of equality of arms is analysed. It is also investigated if the Swedish criminal procedure is in conformity with the principle.  

The principle of equality of arms requires each party to be given a reasonable opportunity to present his case under conditions that do not place him at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis his opponent. The principle incorporates the idea of balance between the parties. In criminal proceedings, the prosecutor is the stronger party since the prosecutor, unlike the accused, has access to the authority’s investigative resources. To equalize the inequality between the prosecutor and the accused, certain principles and rules in favour of the accused are used in the proceeding. The principles and rights set out in the European Convention are among others the presumption of innocence, the right to an adversarial process and the right to defence. The meanings of these rights are further analysed in this essay and it is also investigated if they are met in the Swedish criminal procedure. When investigating whether the Swedish principles and rules are in conformity with the rights set out in the European Convention, consideration has been taken to how the principles and rules are formulated as well as how they are applied in practise.

The Swedish criminal procedure is characterized by an adversarial process. A suspect or an accused has the right to continuously acquaint himself with the investigation material if it can be done without detriment to the investigation. By the final notification, the suspect/accused has the right to have all of the investigative material disclosed to him. There is also a right to cross-examine witnesses during the proceeding. However, the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure does not clearly outline the right to disclosure during the proceeding and opinions differ about how far-reaching the right actually is. Moreover, the suspect/accused is also entitled to a defence counsel who must perform his duties in a satisfying way. To be able to determine whether these Swedish rules are in conformity with the European Convention, is it discussed in this essay how the rights in the European Convention can be interpreted. In addition to the different ways of equalizing the inequality between the parties set out in the Convention, Swedish law offers a few more possibilities. The prosecutor must consider the principle of objectivity and therefore needs to take the suspect’s interests into consideration during the investigation and proceeding. The defence also has the right to request completion of the preliminary investigation and the judge has the possibility to interfere during the proceeding in favour of the accused.     

After the comparison between the rights set out in the European Convention and Swedish criminal procedure, the conclusion in this essay is that the rights are respected in many, but not all, respects. The rights of the European Convention can be interpreted in different ways and the conformity between the Swedish criminal procedure and the rights in the European Convention depends upon the out-come of the interpretation. The meaning of some of the Swedish rules is also unclear. Even though Swedish law offers more ways of equalizing the inequality between the parties than is set out in the European Convention, the relationship is still not equalized. This is due to the ineffectiveness in which these ways to equalize are practised.},
  author       = {Södergren, Anna},
  keyword      = {Processrätt},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Parternas likställdhet i processen - om principens upprätthållande i svensk brottmålsprocess},
  year         = {2010},
}