Advanced

Om nämndemän i asylprocessen

Kockum, Erik LU (2011) JURM01 20102
Department of Law
Abstract
The Swedish asylum process changed fundamentally in 2005 when trials were transferred from an administrative process (utlänningsnämnden) to a court process (migrationsdomstolen). The general aim of the reform was to strengthen the rule of law in the asylum process. The new immigration courts are composed of lay judges. Lay judges are rooted in the Swedish tradition but they are common in other countries as well.
Lay judges in Sweden are appointed following their nomination from the political parties. The success of Sverigedemokraterna in the 2010 parliamentary elections meant that they were entitled to an increased number of lay judges around the country. Therefore there is a fear that they, with their uncompromising position on asylum... (More)
The Swedish asylum process changed fundamentally in 2005 when trials were transferred from an administrative process (utlänningsnämnden) to a court process (migrationsdomstolen). The general aim of the reform was to strengthen the rule of law in the asylum process. The new immigration courts are composed of lay judges. Lay judges are rooted in the Swedish tradition but they are common in other countries as well.
Lay judges in Sweden are appointed following their nomination from the political parties. The success of Sverigedemokraterna in the 2010 parliamentary elections meant that they were entitled to an increased number of lay judges around the country. Therefore there is a fear that they, with their uncompromising position on asylum policy, will have difficulties in remaining objective which is a key requirement for any judge. This essay seeks to address the question of which arguments there are to allow lay judges to participate in the immigration court and whether their party membership can be challenged. During the introduction of the new immigration court there were hardly any discussions about the role lay judges would play in their functioning. Their participation was taken for granted, although there has been opposition to their participation in the judicial system. The main arguments put forward in their favor is that they provide enhanced legitimacy, greater democratic accountability, strengthen transparency and that they see the law’s purpose. One of the main arguments against is that they lack legal knowledge and training. Since the nominations of lay judges are made by the political parties there is a clear link between politics and the judiciary, a clear breach of the separation of powers. Whether this can disqualify the lay judges in the asylum process is regulated in the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure (rättegångsbalken) and by a recently introduced article in the Swedish Constitution (regeringsformen) that states that a trial must be conducted fairly and within a reasonable time. This article means that the European Court’s case law concerning the right to a fair trial must be also be considered in the asylum process. The European Court’s case law shows that allegations of racism should be taken very seriously and that there are stringent demands for action to be taken by the court in order to rule out any doubts about impartiality. Preconceptions and discrimination are not acceptable. It is unclear whether lay judges could or would be challenged due to their party affiliation. It may be possible in a case where a party expresses an unacceptable prejudice or the party may have a specific interest in the case. If inappropriate comments are made at or outside the trial, it is likely that the trial would not be regarded as a fair under European law. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
Den svenska asylprocessen förändrades i grunden när överprövningen förflyttades från en domstolsliknande nämnd (utlänningsnämnden) till en renodlad domstolsprocess (migrationsdomstolen). Ett övergripande syfte för reformen var att stärka rättssäkerheten. I den nya migrationsdomstolen ingår nämndemän i den ordinarie sammansättningen. Nämndemannainstitutet har en lång förankring i svensk rättstradition och även i andra länder är något slag av lekmannainflytande vanligt förekommande. Nämndemännen i Sverige tillsätts efter nomineringar från de politiska partierna. Sverigedemokraternas framgångar i senaste riksdagsvalet har inneburit att de fått tillsätta ett ökat antal nämndemän runt om i landet. Farhågan att de med sina tydliga... (More)
Den svenska asylprocessen förändrades i grunden när överprövningen förflyttades från en domstolsliknande nämnd (utlänningsnämnden) till en renodlad domstolsprocess (migrationsdomstolen). Ett övergripande syfte för reformen var att stärka rättssäkerheten. I den nya migrationsdomstolen ingår nämndemän i den ordinarie sammansättningen. Nämndemannainstitutet har en lång förankring i svensk rättstradition och även i andra länder är något slag av lekmannainflytande vanligt förekommande. Nämndemännen i Sverige tillsätts efter nomineringar från de politiska partierna. Sverigedemokraternas framgångar i senaste riksdagsvalet har inneburit att de fått tillsätta ett ökat antal nämndemän runt om i landet. Farhågan att de med sina tydliga ställningstaganden i asylpolitiken har svårt att förhålla sig objektiva leder in till konflikten mellan uttryckta åsikter och den dömande funktionen.
Denna uppsats söker svaret dels på frågan vilka argument som finns för att låta nämndemän ingå i migrationsdomstolen dels om nämndemännens åsikter och partitillhörighet kan vara jävsgrundande.
Vid införandet av den nya migrationsdomstolen gavs frågan om nämndemännens inverkan inte något större utrymme. Deras medverkan togs för given trots att frågan inte är okontroversiell. De huvudsakliga argument som framförs till nämndemännens fördel är att de ger en stärkt legitimitet, en ökad demokratisk kontroll, stärkt insyn och att de har lättare att se till lagens syften. Den huvudsakliga invändningen handlar om deras bristande juridiska kompetens.
Genom att nomineringarna av nämndemännen sker genom de politiska partierna finns det en tydlig koppling mellan parti och nämndemän. Frågan om detta kan innebära jäv för nämndemännen i asylprocessen regleras i RB:s jävsbestämmelser och genom en nyligen införd bestämmelse i 2 kap. 11 § 2 st 1 men RF om att en rättegång ska genomföras rättvist och inom skälig tid. I motiven till denna bestämmelse anges att Europadomstolens praxis om rätt till en rättvis rättegång ska betraktas även i asylprocessen.
Vad Europadomstolens praxis visar är att påståenden om rasism ska tas på stort allvar och att det ställs långtgående krav på åtgärder från domstolens sida för att utesluta tvivel om opartiskhet. Förutfattade meningar och särbehandling accepteras inte. Att nämndemännen skulle vara jäviga redan genom deras medlemskap i deras parti är dock svårt att se. Det kan vara möjligt i ett fall där ett parti ger uttryck för en oacceptabel fördomsfullhet eller om partiet kan anses ha ett intresse i det enskilda fallet. Fälls olämpliga yttranden i samband med eller utanför rättegången är det troligt att det inte skulle anses som en rättvis rättegång enligt Europadomstolens praxis. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Kockum, Erik LU
supervisor
organization
course
JURM01 20102
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
language
Swedish
id
1857062
date added to LUP
2011-03-22 15:29:54
date last changed
2011-03-22 15:29:54
@misc{1857062,
  abstract     = {The Swedish asylum process changed fundamentally in 2005 when trials were transferred from an administrative process (utlänningsnämnden) to a court process (migrationsdomstolen). The general aim of the reform was to strengthen the rule of law in the asylum process. The new immigration courts are composed of lay judges. Lay judges are rooted in the Swedish tradition but they are common in other countries as well. 
 Lay judges in Sweden are appointed following their nomination from the political parties. The success of Sverigedemokraterna in the 2010 parliamentary elections meant that they were entitled to an increased number of lay judges around the country. Therefore there is a fear that they, with their uncompromising position on asylum policy, will have difficulties in remaining objective which is a key requirement for any judge.  This essay seeks to address the question of which arguments there are to allow lay judges to participate in the immigration court and whether their party membership can be challenged. During the introduction of the new immigration court there were hardly any discussions about the role lay judges would play in their functioning. Their participation was taken for granted, although there has been opposition to their participation in the judicial system. The main arguments put forward in their favor is that they provide enhanced legitimacy, greater democratic accountability, strengthen transparency and that they see the law’s purpose. One of the main arguments against is that they lack legal knowledge and training.  Since the nominations of lay judges are made by the political parties there is a clear link between politics and the judiciary, a clear breach of the separation of powers. Whether this can disqualify the lay judges in the asylum process is regulated in the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure (rättegångsbalken) and by a recently introduced article in the Swedish Constitution (regeringsformen) that states that a trial must be conducted fairly and within a reasonable time. This article means that the European Court’s case law concerning the right to a fair trial must be also be considered in the asylum process.   The European Court’s case law shows that allegations of racism should be taken very seriously and that there are stringent demands for action to be taken by the court in order to rule out any doubts about impartiality. Preconceptions and discrimination are not acceptable. It is unclear whether lay judges could or would be challenged due to their party affiliation. It may be possible in a case where a party expresses an unacceptable prejudice or the party may have a specific interest in the case. If inappropriate comments are made at or outside the trial, it is likely that the trial would not be regarded as a fair under European law.},
  author       = {Kockum, Erik},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Om nämndemän i asylprocessen},
  year         = {2011},
}