Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Stadfäst förlikningsavtal - Förfarande, rättsverkningar och framtid

Nilsson, Björn LU (2010) JURM01 20101
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Redan vid en flyktig granskning går det att skönja en klar tendens att alternativa tvistlösningsmetoder förordas allt mer hos lagstiftaren och i den juridiska diskursen i stort. Inom domstolsprocessen finns två alternativa förfaranden som båda syftar till att främja en samförståndslösning mellan parterna. Ett av dessa är att domaren ska när det är lämpligt försöka förmå parterna att förlikas. Domaren har även möjlighet att överlåta denna verksamhet till en fristående medlare. Dessa förfaranden skiljer sig åt genom att medlaren har större handlingsfrihet än domaren. Domaren måste hela tiden undvika att han framstår som opartisk och därmed inte kan döma i tvisten om förlikningsförsöken misslyckas. Valet av medlare kan anpassas efter vilken... (More)
Redan vid en flyktig granskning går det att skönja en klar tendens att alternativa tvistlösningsmetoder förordas allt mer hos lagstiftaren och i den juridiska diskursen i stort. Inom domstolsprocessen finns två alternativa förfaranden som båda syftar till att främja en samförståndslösning mellan parterna. Ett av dessa är att domaren ska när det är lämpligt försöka förmå parterna att förlikas. Domaren har även möjlighet att överlåta denna verksamhet till en fristående medlare. Dessa förfaranden skiljer sig åt genom att medlaren har större handlingsfrihet än domaren. Domaren måste hela tiden undvika att han framstår som opartisk och därmed inte kan döma i tvisten om förlikningsförsöken misslyckas. Valet av medlare kan anpassas efter vilken kompetens som erfordras i den enskilda tvisten. De två förfaranden har det gemensamt att de resulterar i ett civilrättsligt bindande förlikningsavtal. Förlikningsavtalet kan sedan stadfästas av domstolen och därigenom bli exigibelt.

Domstolen har en skyldighet kontrollera förlikningsavtalets tydlighet och omfattning innan den stadfäster avtalet. Kontrollen syftar till att minimera risken för framtida tvister och hinder för verkställighet. De mest grundläggande kraven på förlikningsavtalet ur stadfästelsesynpunkt är att parterna har dispositionsrätt över den sak som avtalet berör. Däri innefattas att parterna äger förfoga över tvisteföremålet, att de är behöriga avtalskontrahenter och att avtalet inte strider mot rättsordningen. Domstolen bör även kontrollera att avtalet är formulerat på ett sådant sätt att dess verkningar är tydliga och enkelt kan verkställas.

Den stadfästa förlikningen träder i det tvistiga rättsförhållandet ställe och är verkställbar men kan inte sägas ha rättskraft som en reguljär dom. En lagakraftvunnen dom kan inte undanröjas annat än genom de extraordinära rättsmedlen. Stadfäst förlikning kan angripas både genom de extraordinära rättsmedlen och genom en ogiltighetstalan mot själva förlikningsavtalet. Förklaras förlikningsavtalet ogiltigt är detta hinder för verkställigheten. Båda förfaranden har fördelar jämfört med det andra. Ogiltighetsprocessen är alltid tillgänglig medan de extraordinära förfarandena som huvudregel utgörs av en skriftlig process med svårigheter att föra muntlig bevisning. De extraordinära förfarandena erbjuder emellertid en inhibitionsmöjlighet som det ogiltighetsförfarandet saknar.

Förfarandet kring den stadfästa förlikningen står inför ett antal förändringar inom kort. Dessa emanerar ur ett EG-direktiv som senast ska implementeras den 21 maj 2011. Direktivet syftar till att främja samförståndslösningar som tvistlösningsmetod. En av förändringarna som direktivet lanserar är att det ska införas en möjlighet att göra förlikningar som tillkommit genom utomrättslig medling verkställbara. I en SOU som kom 2007 föreslogs ett obligatorisk medlingsförfarande innan tvisten tas upp till rättslig prövning. Förslaget är vilanden och ska behandlas i anslutning till att direktivets konsekvenser i övrigt utreds. (Less)
Abstract
Even at a brief examination it is possible to notice a clear trend in favour of alternative dispute resolutions advocated increasingly by the legislature and in the legal discourse in general. Within the judicial process there are two alternative procedures who both aim to promote a solution based on conciliation between the parties. One of these procedures consists of that the judge has an obligation to, where appropriate, make an effort to conciliate the parties. The judge also has the optation to assign this activity to an independent mediator. These procedures differ in the sense that the mediator has a larger discretional span than the judge. The judge must at all times seek to avoid that he appears to be impartial and therefore can... (More)
Even at a brief examination it is possible to notice a clear trend in favour of alternative dispute resolutions advocated increasingly by the legislature and in the legal discourse in general. Within the judicial process there are two alternative procedures who both aim to promote a solution based on conciliation between the parties. One of these procedures consists of that the judge has an obligation to, where appropriate, make an effort to conciliate the parties. The judge also has the optation to assign this activity to an independent mediator. These procedures differ in the sense that the mediator has a larger discretional span than the judge. The judge must at all times seek to avoid that he appears to be impartial and therefore can not judge the dispute if the conciliation attempts fails. The choice of mediator can be adapted to the skills required in the particular dispute. The two processes have in common that they both result in a mutually binding settlement. At the request of both parties the settlement can then be confirmed by the court and thereby become enforceable by government agencies.

The court has an obligation to examine the settlements clarity and scope. That purpose of this is to minimize disputes and obstacles in relation to the enforcement. The most basic requirements of the settlement agreement concerning the confirmation are that the parties have legal competence to conciliate in the dispute that is affected by the contract. This includes both that the parties are competent contractors and that the agreement is not in conflict with the legal system in general. The court should also check that the contract is worded in such a way that its effects are clear and easily enforceable.

The confirmed settlement aims to put an end to the dispute. The confirmed settlement is also enforceable but can not be said to have legal force as an ordinary verdict. An ordinary verdict may only be quashed by extraordinary remedies. A confirmed settlement out of court can be tackled both through extraordinary remedies and by an action for annulment of the settlement contract. If declared void, the settlement is no longer a hindrance to enforcement. Both procedures have advantages. A nullification action is always possible while the extraordinary remedies as a rule consists of a written process with small possibilities to present witnesses. However, the extraordinary remedies offers an opportunity to inhibit the enforcement of the confirmed settlement.

The procedure in which a settlement can be confirmed faces a number of changes in the near future. These changes emanate from an EU directive which is to be implemented at the latest 21 May 2011. The directive aims to promote dispute solutions based on conciliation and mediation. One of the changes emanating from the directive is a possibility to confirm settlements which is the result of a non-judicial mediation procedure. In 2007 a SOU proposed a mandatory mediation procedure before the dispute may be subject of the judicial review of the court. The proposal is being reviewed in conjunction with the directive's other effects. The result of this review is soon to come. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Nilsson, Björn LU
supervisor
organization
course
JURM01 20101
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Processrätt
language
Swedish
id
1690993
date added to LUP
2010-10-07 14:54:14
date last changed
2010-10-07 14:54:14
@misc{1690993,
  abstract     = {{Even at a brief examination it is possible to notice a clear trend in favour of alternative dispute resolutions advocated increasingly by the legislature and in the legal discourse in general. Within the judicial process there are two alternative procedures who both aim to promote a solution based on conciliation between the parties. One of these procedures consists of that the judge has an obligation to, where appropriate, make an effort to conciliate the parties. The judge also has the optation to assign this activity to an independent mediator. These procedures differ in the sense that the mediator has a larger discretional span than the judge. The judge must at all times seek to avoid that he appears to be impartial and therefore can not judge the dispute if the conciliation attempts fails. The choice of mediator can be adapted to the skills required in the particular dispute. The two processes have in common that they both result in a mutually binding settlement. At the request of both parties the settlement can then be confirmed by the court and thereby become enforceable by government agencies. 

The court has an obligation to examine the settlements clarity and scope. That purpose of this is to minimize disputes and obstacles in relation to the enforcement. The most basic requirements of the settlement agreement concerning the confirmation are that the parties have legal competence to conciliate in the dispute that is affected by the contract. This includes both that the parties are competent contractors and that the agreement is not in conflict with the legal system in general. The court should also check that the contract is worded in such a way that its effects are clear and easily enforceable. 

The confirmed settlement aims to put an end to the dispute. The confirmed settlement is also enforceable but can not be said to have legal force as an ordinary verdict. An ordinary verdict may only be quashed by extraordinary remedies. A confirmed settlement out of court can be tackled both through extraordinary remedies and by an action for annulment of the settlement contract. If declared void, the settlement is no longer a hindrance to enforcement. Both procedures have advantages. A nullification action is always possible while the extraordinary remedies as a rule consists of a written process with small possibilities to present witnesses. However, the extraordinary remedies offers an opportunity to inhibit the enforcement of the confirmed settlement. 

The procedure in which a settlement can be confirmed faces a number of changes in the near future. These changes emanate from an EU directive which is to be implemented at the latest 21 May 2011. The directive aims to promote dispute solutions based on conciliation and mediation. One of the changes emanating from the directive is a possibility to confirm settlements which is the result of a non-judicial mediation procedure. In 2007 a SOU proposed a mandatory mediation procedure before the dispute may be subject of the judicial review of the court. The proposal is being reviewed in conjunction with the directive's other effects. The result of this review is soon to come.}},
  author       = {{Nilsson, Björn}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Stadfäst förlikningsavtal - Förfarande, rättsverkningar och framtid}},
  year         = {{2010}},
}