Advanced

EU och svensk straffverkställighet

Måhl, Maja LU (2011) JURM01 20102
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Straffverkställighet avser den delen av rättskipning varigenom de utdömda straffen realiseras. Straffverkställighet utgör en del av straffprocessrätten. Rätten för ett land att verkställa straff och rätten att besluta om vilken funktion straffverkställighet ska spela i det straffrättsliga systemet i stort har, tillsammans med övriga straffrättsliga frågor, traditionellt betraktats som en exklusivt nationell angelägenhet.

Svensk straffverkställighetspolitik har traditionellt präglats av synen på brottslighet som ett fenomen med sociala orsaksförklaringar och fokus på behandlingsåtgärder som medel för att uppnå individualpreventiv effekt. Denna straffrättsideologiska utgångspunkt har även präglat samarbetet mellan de nordiska länderna.... (More)
Straffverkställighet avser den delen av rättskipning varigenom de utdömda straffen realiseras. Straffverkställighet utgör en del av straffprocessrätten. Rätten för ett land att verkställa straff och rätten att besluta om vilken funktion straffverkställighet ska spela i det straffrättsliga systemet i stort har, tillsammans med övriga straffrättsliga frågor, traditionellt betraktats som en exklusivt nationell angelägenhet.

Svensk straffverkställighetspolitik har traditionellt präglats av synen på brottslighet som ett fenomen med sociala orsaksförklaringar och fokus på behandlingsåtgärder som medel för att uppnå individualpreventiv effekt. Denna straffrättsideologiska utgångspunkt har även präglat samarbetet mellan de nordiska länderna. Idag har emellertid behandlingsideologiska åtgärder i viss mån ersatts av en mer offensiv kriminalpolitik där individens eget ansvar betonas. Svensk straffverkställighet karaktäriseras idag av goda möjligheter att individanpassa straffverkställigheten efter den dömdes förutsättningar i det enskilda fallet.

När EU bildades var en av utgångspunkterna att straffrätt och straffprocessrätt även fortsättningsvis skulle förbli exklusivt nationella frågor. Intentionen var således att straffrätten i sin helhet skulle förbli ett rättsområde utanför unionens överstatliga kompetens. EU har emellertid sedan grundandet förändrats kraftigt, vilket successivt har förändrat straffrättens roll inom unionen. Samarbete på straffrättens område har successivt kommit att betraktas som ett nödvändigt medel för att förverkliga unionens intressen.

Lissabonfördraget trädde i kraft den 1 december 2009. Genom Lissabonfördraget slopades EU:s forna pelarstruktur, vilket konkretiserade stora förändringar för straffrättens funktion inom unionen. Straffrätten såsom tillhörande det överstatliga samarbetet inom unionen fördragsfästes. Detta innebär att EU:s beslut fr.o.m. Lissabonfördragets ikraftträdande nu även formellt står över nationella beslut i straffrättsliga frågor med ett gränsöverskridande inslag. Det straffrättsliga samarbetet inom EU regleras i artiklarna 82 – 86 i Lissabonfördraget.

Artikel 82 i Lissabonfördraget reglerar straffprocessuella frågor, och är därför av särskild betydelse för en diskussion kring straffverkställighetsaspekter inom EU-samarbetet. Principen om ömsesidigt erkännande och harmonisering genom antagande av minimiregler i frågor av gränsöverskridande dimension kommer enligt denna artikel att styra den fortsatta utvecklingen på det straffprocessuella området. Avvägningen mellan dessa principer kommer att bli en avgörande fråga för den fortsatta utvecklingen på straffverkställighetsområdet inom EU.

Från ett svenskt straffverkställighetsperspektiv kan konstateras att ett ökat inflytande av principen om ömsesidigt erkännande inom EU kommer att medföra nya krav på svensk kriminalvård att i högre utsträckning grunda verkställighetsbeslut på utländskt beslutsunderlag. Detta kommer i motsvarande grad att öka kriminalvårdens möjligheter att resocialisera den dömde, vilket ligger väl i linje med svensk traditionell straffverkställighetsideologi.

Kvarvarande olikheter mellan medlemsstaternas straffverkställighetssystem, tillsammans med ett ökat inflytande av principen om ömsesidigt erkännande, kan emellertid också medföra en risk för att gärningsmän utnyttjar dessa olikheter till Sveriges nackdel. Svenska straffverkställighetsregler kan därutöver motverka genomförandet av principen om ömsesidigt erkännande genom att omöjliggöra insyn från övriga medlemsstater och vara oförutsebara till sin natur. En absolut harmonisering av straffverkställighetsregler inom EU är ett alternativ till ett system baserat på principen om ömsesidigt erkännande, men kan medföra en risk för att svenska straffverkställighetsregler förändras i striktare riktning. I den fortsatta utvecklingen är det viktigt att Sverige intar en aktiv roll för att påverka kommande straffverkställighetsinstrument inom ramen för EU-samarbetet på området. (Less)
Abstract
Penalty enforcement refers to the part of the administration of justice in which the imposed punishments are being realized. Penalty enforcement is part of the criminal procedure law. The right to execute punishments and the right to decide on which impact the criminal enforcement should have in the criminal system has, along with other criminal matters, traditionally been regarded as an exclusively national issue.

Swedish criminal enforcement policy has traditionally been characterized by the perception of crime as part of a social context and a focus on treatment to achieve crime preventive effect. This perception of crime has also characterized the cooperation between the Nordic countries. Today, however, the traditional treatment... (More)
Penalty enforcement refers to the part of the administration of justice in which the imposed punishments are being realized. Penalty enforcement is part of the criminal procedure law. The right to execute punishments and the right to decide on which impact the criminal enforcement should have in the criminal system has, along with other criminal matters, traditionally been regarded as an exclusively national issue.

Swedish criminal enforcement policy has traditionally been characterized by the perception of crime as part of a social context and a focus on treatment to achieve crime preventive effect. This perception of crime has also characterized the cooperation between the Nordic countries. Today, however, the traditional treatment ideology has to some extent been replaced by a more aggressive criminal policy in which individual responsibility is stressed. Today, Swedish criminal enforcement is characterized by a variety of legal opportunities to individualize the penalty enforcement.

When the EU was formed, one of the starting points was that criminal law and criminal procedure would maintain exclusively national issues. Since the foundation, the EU has however changed significantly, which gradually has changed the role of criminal justice within the Union. Criminal law and criminal enforcement is today regarded as important means in order to realize the Union´s interests.

The Lisbon Treaty was adopted on the 1st of December 2009. The Treaty abolished the former pillar structure of the EU, which lead to important changes for the function of criminal justice within the Union. The Treaty confirms that criminal law today is part of the supranational cooperation of the EU, which means that union criminal law now formally is superior to national criminal law in certain matters. Criminal law within the EU is governed by Articles 82-86 of the Lisbon Treaty.

Article 82 of the Lisbon Treaty regulates procedural criminal law, and is therefore of particular relevance in a discussion on criminal enforcement systems within the Union. The principle of mutual recognition and harmonization through adoption of minimum rules in matters of cross-border dimension are, according to this article, crucial for the further development of criminal enforcement cooperation within the Union. The balance between these principles will determine the structure and design of this cooperation.

From a Swedish criminal enforcement perspective can be noted that the increased influence of the principle of mutual recognition within the EU will impose new requirements on the Prison and Probation service to enforce penalties based on foreign decisions and judgments. This will also increase the opportunities to resocialise the offender, which is in line with traditional Swedish criminal enforcement ideology.

The legal differences of the criminal enforcement systems within EU may however, together with an increased influence of the principle of mutual recognition, also create an opportunity for offenders to use these differences to the detriment of Sweden. Swedish criminal enforcement law can also prevent the implementation of the principle of mutual recognition by being unpredictable from the pointview of other EU member states.

An absolute harmonization of enforcement rules within the EU is an alternative to a cooperation based on the principle of mutual recognition, but also presents a risk that Swedish criminal enforcement rules changes in a repressive direction. It is crucial that Sweden takes an active part in the future EU cooperation on criminal enforcement matters. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Måhl, Maja LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
EU and the Swedish criminal enforcement system
course
JURM01 20102
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
straffprocessrätt, straffrätt, straffverkställighet, Lissabonfördraget
language
Swedish
id
1761653
date added to LUP
2011-01-13 14:53:44
date last changed
2011-01-13 14:53:44
@misc{1761653,
  abstract     = {Penalty enforcement refers to the part of the administration of justice in which the imposed punishments are being realized. Penalty enforcement is part of the criminal procedure law. The right to execute punishments and the right to decide on which impact the criminal enforcement should have in the criminal system has, along with other criminal matters, traditionally been regarded as an exclusively national issue.

Swedish criminal enforcement policy has traditionally been characterized by the perception of crime as part of a social context and a focus on treatment to achieve crime preventive effect. This perception of crime has also characterized the cooperation between the Nordic countries. Today, however, the traditional treatment ideology has to some extent been replaced by a more aggressive criminal policy in which individual responsibility is stressed. Today, Swedish criminal enforcement is characterized by a variety of legal opportunities to individualize the penalty enforcement.

When the EU was formed, one of the starting points was that criminal law and criminal procedure would maintain exclusively national issues. Since the foundation, the EU has however changed significantly, which gradually has changed the role of criminal justice within the Union. Criminal law and criminal enforcement is today regarded as important means in order to realize the Union´s interests.

The Lisbon Treaty was adopted on the 1st of December 2009. The Treaty abolished the former pillar structure of the EU, which lead to important changes for the function of criminal justice within the Union. The Treaty confirms that criminal law today is part of the supranational cooperation of the EU, which means that union criminal law now formally is superior to national criminal law in certain matters. Criminal law within the EU is governed by Articles 82-86 of the Lisbon Treaty.

Article 82 of the Lisbon Treaty regulates procedural criminal law, and is therefore of particular relevance in a discussion on criminal enforcement systems within the Union. The principle of mutual recognition and harmonization through adoption of minimum rules in matters of cross-border dimension are, according to this article, crucial for the further development of criminal enforcement cooperation within the Union. The balance between these principles will determine the structure and design of this cooperation. 

From a Swedish criminal enforcement perspective can be noted that the increased influence of the principle of mutual recognition within the EU will impose new requirements on the Prison and Probation service to enforce penalties based on foreign decisions and judgments. This will also increase the opportunities to resocialise the offender, which is in line with traditional Swedish criminal enforcement ideology.

The legal differences of the criminal enforcement systems within EU may however, together with an increased influence of the principle of mutual recognition, also create an opportunity for offenders to use these differences to the detriment of Sweden. Swedish criminal enforcement law can also prevent the implementation of the principle of mutual recognition by being unpredictable from the pointview of other EU member states.

An absolute harmonization of enforcement rules within the EU is an alternative to a cooperation based on the principle of mutual recognition, but also presents a risk that Swedish criminal enforcement rules changes in a repressive direction. It is crucial that Sweden takes an active part in the future EU cooperation on criminal enforcement matters.},
  author       = {Måhl, Maja},
  keyword      = {straffprocessrätt,straffrätt,straffverkställighet,Lissabonfördraget},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {EU och svensk straffverkställighet},
  year         = {2011},
}