Advanced

Bruk av cannabis i Danmark och dubbel straffbarhet i Sverige - förenligt eller ej?

Beillon, Emelie LU (2010) JURM01 20102
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Förhållandet mellan dubbel straffbarhet och brukande av cannabis i Danmark är ett komplicerat sådant. I Danmark är bruk av narkotika inte självständigt reglerat i narkotikalagstiftningen såsom det är i Sverige. Med anledning av detta är det således problematiskt för det svenska rättsväsendet att avgöra om det är legaliserat eller ej att bruka narkotika i Danmark.

I den danska narkotikalagstiftningen föreligger begreppet besiddelse. Innebörden av detta begrepp är av betydelse för att avgöra om det existerar dubbel straffbarhet och således svensk jurisdiktion när exempelvis en svensk medborgare med hemvist här i riket har rökt hasch i Köpenhamn. Det har avkunnats två motsatta avgöranden gällande den nämnda omständigheten. I RH 2001:16... (More)
Förhållandet mellan dubbel straffbarhet och brukande av cannabis i Danmark är ett komplicerat sådant. I Danmark är bruk av narkotika inte självständigt reglerat i narkotikalagstiftningen såsom det är i Sverige. Med anledning av detta är det således problematiskt för det svenska rättsväsendet att avgöra om det är legaliserat eller ej att bruka narkotika i Danmark.

I den danska narkotikalagstiftningen föreligger begreppet besiddelse. Innebörden av detta begrepp är av betydelse för att avgöra om det existerar dubbel straffbarhet och således svensk jurisdiktion när exempelvis en svensk medborgare med hemvist här i riket har rökt hasch i Köpenhamn. Det har avkunnats två motsatta avgöranden gällande den nämnda omständigheten. I RH 2001:16 bedömde HovR att bruk av narkotika inkluderas i begreppet besiddelse och kravet på dubbel straffbarhet var därmed uppfyllt. Det väsentliga var i sammanhanget att en straffskala finns för gärningen i den danska narkotikalagstiftningen. Det senare avgörandet, RH 2010:38, friade dock den tilltalade. I ett inhämtat yttrande från det danska Justitieministeriet framgick det att bruk av narkotika inte är självständigt reglerat. Utifrån detta bedömde HovR att bruk inte inkluderas i begreppet besiddelse och ogillade åtalet.

Såsom konsekvens av avgörandet RH 2010:38 och att det inte bedöms vara olagligt att bruka cannabis i Danmark följer en bevisningsproblematik för åklagaren. Denne har till uppgift att bevisa att den tilltalade har begått brottet genom att ha brukat narkotikan i Sverige och inte i Danmark, vilket säkerligen kommer att invändas. Fortsättningsvis får domstolen en mer krävande uppgift genom att bland annat tolka den danska lagstiftnigen. En till synes komplicerad uppgift med beaktande av de motsatta avgörandena ovan.

Jag är av uppfattningen att det danska begreppet besiddelse åsyftar innehav av narkotika. Men; med hänvisning till den danska lagstiftningen lov om euforiserende stoffer är kravet på dubbel straffbarhet ändå uppfyllt då det är olagligt att inneha narkotika med syfte att bruka denna. Därmed är det ändamålet med den danska lagstiftningen som bör beaktas och inte endast begreppet besiddelse vid bedömande om kravet på dubbel straffbarhet är uppfyllt. Danmark har således enbart ett annat tillvägagångssätt att reglera narkotikahanteringen och fokuserar främst på narkotikainnehavet. Det innebär dock inte att det är legaliserat att bruka narkotika. Genom detta borde varken åklagaren eller domstolen ha en sådan problematisk uppgift såsom det synes vara idag på grund av det senaste avgörandet från HovR där det bedömdes att dubbel straffbarhet inte existerar, eftersom att det enligt domstolen är legaliserat att bruka narkotika i Danmark.

Om de framtida avgörandena dock inte är av samma åsikt är en eventuell lösning för det svenska rättsväsendet att fokusera på själva innehavet som var innan konsumtionen av narkotikan. Detta är omständigheter som uttryckligen är brottsligt både i Sverige och i Danmark. Åklagarens bevisningsproblematik underlättas vidare härigenom då det synes vara komplicerat att invända att man inte har innehaft narkotikan innan man brukade den. (Less)
Abstract
The relationship between the requirement of double criminality and using cannabis in Denmark is complicated. The reason is that the Danish legislation of drugs doesn´t have a specific rule which prohibits the condition of using drugs. Therefore, it´s a difficult task for the Swedish judicial system to decide whether or not it´s illegal to use drugs in Denmark. As a consequence, it´s also hard to determine the fulfilment of the requirement of double criminality.

The Danish legislation of drugs contains the concept “besiddelse”. The meaning of that concept has an important role in this context when deciding if the requirement of double criminality could be fulfilled, and accordingly if the Swedish jurisdiction is applicable when, for... (More)
The relationship between the requirement of double criminality and using cannabis in Denmark is complicated. The reason is that the Danish legislation of drugs doesn´t have a specific rule which prohibits the condition of using drugs. Therefore, it´s a difficult task for the Swedish judicial system to decide whether or not it´s illegal to use drugs in Denmark. As a consequence, it´s also hard to determine the fulfilment of the requirement of double criminality.

The Danish legislation of drugs contains the concept “besiddelse”. The meaning of that concept has an important role in this context when deciding if the requirement of double criminality could be fulfilled, and accordingly if the Swedish jurisdiction is applicable when, for instance, a Swedish citizen with residence in Sweden misuses cannabis in Copenhagen. Two opposite judgements from the Court of Appeal have been pronounced concerning those circumstances. The case RH 2001:16 adjudged that the concept “besiddelse” includes use of drugs and by that the requirement of double criminality was fulfilled. According to the Court, the essential was that the Danish rule in the legislation contained a range of punishment. The latest case, RH 2010:38, dismissed the prosecution. According to an obtained opinion from the Danish Justice ministry, the circumstance when using drugs isn´t independently regulated in the Danish legislation of drugs. Based on that opinion, the Court adjudged that it´s not illegal to use drugs in Denmark and therefore the requirement of double criminality wasn´t fulfilled.

As a consequence of the case RH 2010:38 and the judgement that it isn´t illegal to use drugs in Denmark, there followed a problematic burden of proof for the prosecutors. The role of the prosecutor is to prove the suspect guilty by having used cannabis in Sweden and not in Denmark, which certainly will be objected as a consequence of the latest judgement. Furthermore, the court in general probably will have a demanding task when interpreting the Danish law of drugs and the concept “besiddelse”. With reference to the two opposite judgements, it seems to be a complicated mission.

According to my opinion, the Danish concept “besiddelse” means possession of drugs. Nevertheless, with reference to the Danish legislation; “Lov om euforiserende stoffer”, the requirement of double criminality is fulfilled since it´s illegal to hold drugs with the intention to using it. Therefore, it´s vital to consider the purpose of the Danish legislation of drugs and not only the concept of “besiddelse” when determining if the requirement of double criminality is fulfilled or not. The Danish legislation obviously has another approach to deal with drugs by focusing on possession. Regarding to the aforementioned, either the prosecutor or the court should have the problematic tasks as a consequence of the latest judgement RH 2010:38, which stated that the requirement of double criminality wasn´t fulfilled since it seems to be legal to use drugs in Denmark.

If the future judgement doesn´t have the same opinion as I have, a possible solution to the problem is for the judicial judgment to focus on the possession before the use of drugs, as possession of drugs is illegal in Sweden as well. In this way it would be easier to fulfil the requirement of double criminality. Furthermore, the prosecutors’ burden of proof in court would be easier since it seems to be hard to object to the possession of the drugs before the suspect used it. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Beillon, Emelie LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Using cannabis in Denmark and double criminality in Sweden - compatible or not?
course
JURM01 20102
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
internationell straffrätt, dubbel straffbarhet
language
Swedish
id
1745977
date added to LUP
2011-01-19 11:20:21
date last changed
2011-01-19 11:20:21
@misc{1745977,
  abstract     = {The relationship between the requirement of double criminality and using cannabis in Denmark is complicated. The reason is that the Danish legislation of drugs doesn´t have a specific rule which prohibits the condition of using drugs. Therefore, it´s a difficult task for the Swedish judicial system to decide whether or not it´s illegal to use drugs in Denmark. As a consequence, it´s also hard to determine the fulfilment of the requirement of double criminality.

The Danish legislation of drugs contains the concept “besiddelse”. The meaning of that concept has an important role in this context when deciding if the requirement of double criminality could be fulfilled, and accordingly if the Swedish jurisdiction is applicable when, for instance, a Swedish citizen with residence in Sweden misuses cannabis in Copenhagen. Two opposite judgements from the Court of Appeal have been pronounced concerning those circumstances. The case RH 2001:16 adjudged that the concept “besiddelse” includes use of drugs and by that the requirement of double criminality was fulfilled. According to the Court, the essential was that the Danish rule in the legislation contained a range of punishment. The latest case, RH 2010:38, dismissed the prosecution. According to an obtained opinion from the Danish Justice ministry, the circumstance when using drugs isn´t independently regulated in the Danish legislation of drugs. Based on that opinion, the Court adjudged that it´s not illegal to use drugs in Denmark and therefore the requirement of double criminality wasn´t fulfilled.

As a consequence of the case RH 2010:38 and the judgement that it isn´t illegal to use drugs in Denmark, there followed a problematic burden of proof for the prosecutors. The role of the prosecutor is to prove the suspect guilty by having used cannabis in Sweden and not in Denmark, which certainly will be objected as a consequence of the latest judgement. Furthermore, the court in general probably will have a demanding task when interpreting the Danish law of drugs and the concept “besiddelse”. With reference to the two opposite judgements, it seems to be a complicated mission. 

According to my opinion, the Danish concept “besiddelse” means possession of drugs. Nevertheless, with reference to the Danish legislation; “Lov om euforiserende stoffer”, the requirement of double criminality is fulfilled since it´s illegal to hold drugs with the intention to using it. Therefore, it´s vital to consider the purpose of the Danish legislation of drugs and not only the concept of “besiddelse” when determining if the requirement of double criminality is fulfilled or not. The Danish legislation obviously has another approach to deal with drugs by focusing on possession. Regarding to the aforementioned, either the prosecutor or the court should have the problematic tasks as a consequence of the latest judgement RH 2010:38, which stated that the requirement of double criminality wasn´t fulfilled since it seems to be legal to use drugs in Denmark.

If the future judgement doesn´t have the same opinion as I have, a possible solution to the problem is for the judicial judgment to focus on the possession before the use of drugs, as possession of drugs is illegal in Sweden as well. In this way it would be easier to fulfil the requirement of double criminality. Furthermore, the prosecutors’ burden of proof in court would be easier since it seems to be hard to object to the possession of the drugs before the suspect used it.},
  author       = {Beillon, Emelie},
  keyword      = {internationell straffrätt,dubbel straffbarhet},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Bruk av cannabis i Danmark och dubbel straffbarhet i Sverige - förenligt eller ej?},
  year         = {2010},
}