Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Officialprincipen och dess tillämpning i förvaltningsmål – särskilt om ansvaret för utredningen i invändningsmål rörande immateriella rättigheter

Roos, Daniel LU (2013) JURM02 20131
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Rollfördelningen mellan part och domstol har länge varit föremål för diskussioner i juridisk doktrin. Frågeställningar kring vilka omständigheter som föranleder domstol att tillgodose partsintressen genom materiell processledning eller övriga utredande åtgärder leder inte sällan till komplexa resonemang hänförliga till civilprocessens och förvaltningsprocessens egentliga funktion. Domstolens verksamhet i detta avseende är hänförlig till officialprincipen, vilken beskriver och sammanfattar domstolens roll avseende ansvaret för utredningen och materialet i en process.
Officialprincipen skall enligt förarbetena till förvaltningsprocesslagen (1971:291), förkortad FPL, prägla förvaltningsprocessen. Detta för att domstolarna skall kunna... (More)
Rollfördelningen mellan part och domstol har länge varit föremål för diskussioner i juridisk doktrin. Frågeställningar kring vilka omständigheter som föranleder domstol att tillgodose partsintressen genom materiell processledning eller övriga utredande åtgärder leder inte sällan till komplexa resonemang hänförliga till civilprocessens och förvaltningsprocessens egentliga funktion. Domstolens verksamhet i detta avseende är hänförlig till officialprincipen, vilken beskriver och sammanfattar domstolens roll avseende ansvaret för utredningen och materialet i en process.
Officialprincipen skall enligt förarbetena till förvaltningsprocesslagen (1971:291), förkortad FPL, prägla förvaltningsprocessen. Detta för att domstolarna skall kunna producera materiellt riktiga domar. Förekomsten av dessa är en förutsättning för att kunna erbjuda enskild rättsäkerhet. 8 § FPL stadgar att rätten skall tillse att mål blir så utrett som dess beskaffenhet kräver, bestämmelsen ger uttryck för officialprincipens ställning i förvaltningsprocessen.
Vid en första anblick finns det anledning att sluta sig till uppfattningen som gör gällande att tillämpningen av officialprincipen är mer omfattande i förvaltningsprocessen än i civilprocessuella mål vid allmän domstol. Det då finns anledning att ställa sig frågan vad som då gäller i mål som handhas i enligt reglerna i FPL, men som uppvisar likheter med civilprocessuella tvistemål. Exempel på sådana mål är immaterialrättsliga invändningsmål. Innebär handläggningen av dessa mål enligt FPL att andra processuella effekter med koppling till officialprincipen uppstår, än om målet skulle kommit att avgöras enligt civilprocessuella regler? Vad innebär då detta för enskild part?
Avgörande för omfattningen av förvaltningsdomstols ansvar för utredningen är målets beskaffenhet. Förvaltningsdomstol har ett ansvar för att ett mål blir så utrett som dess beskaffenhet kräver. Detta innebär att utredningen måste vara tillräckligt god för att målet skall kunna avgöras. När utredningen skall anses vara tillräcklig för att ett mål skall kunna avgöras beror på vad målet gäller materiellt samt vilka partsförhållanden som präglar målet. Ju större betydelse ett mål har desto mer krävs för att utredningen skall anses tillräcklig.
Faktorer som kan påverka betydelsen av ett måls betydelse, och forma dess materiella karaktär, är vilka intressen och styrkan av dessa som präglar ett mål. Ett mål som gäller stora värden måste anses ha större betydelse än de som gäller små värden. Det är svårt att måla upp några generellt tillämpliga riktlinjer hur bedömningen skall göras i detta avseende, utan en bedömning måste ske i varje enskilt fall. Vad gäller invändningsmål talar mycket för att de faktorer som formar invändningsmålens materiella karaktär påverkar rättens ansvar för
4
utredningen i en lättande rikting. De enskilda intressen som präglar invändningsmål är främst av kommersiell natur och uppvisar onekligen likheter med civilprocessuella tvistemål. Restriktivitet rörande utredande åtgärder och andra processledande aktiviteter från rättens sida i dessa mål torde då vara lämpligt. Risken finns att rätten genom utredande åtgärder kan komma att gynna den ena parten till nackdel för den andra är. Detta innebär att domstolens roll som oberoende och objektiv kan komma att ifrågasättas, detta rimmar illa med processens funktion.
Det tenderar vara lättare att utifrån partsförhållandena i ett mål kunna bedöma omfattningen för rättens ansvar för utredningen. Av för arbetet relevant praxis framgår det att förhållandet mellan de olika parterna är avgörande för omfattningen av rättens utredande verksamhet.
Invändningsmål utgör flerpartsmål. Utredningen visar att de enskilda parterna i en majoritet av fallen är representerade av ombud specialiserade inom sitt område. Att båda parter representeras av yrkeskunniga ombud och således är tämligen likställda uppmärksammas i rättens domskäl. Förhållandet parterna emellan verkar vara en viktig faktor som rätten beaktar vid bedömningen huruvida ett ansvar för utredande åtgärder vilar på domstolen. Föremålet för tvisten i invändningsmål är rätten till giltigt varumärke och det ensamrätten till detta. Två likställda parter företrädda av ombud vilka tvistar om nämnda rättighet ger onekligen målet en kommersiell prägel. Under dessa förhållanden borde rätten vara restriktiv när det kommer till utredande åtgärder rörande processmaterialet.
Om domstolen medelst processledning eller med andra utredande åtgärder som har för avsikt att komma till rätta med en rättslig brist rörande parts utredning, finns alltid risken att detta missgynnar enskild motpart. Ett sådant handlande av domstolen måste anses strida mot förvaltningsdomstolarnas och förvaltningsprocessens funktion. Även om processledande åtgärder vidtas av rätten med syfte att hjälpa enskild gentemot offentlig motpart finns det i invändningsmål ytterligare en enskild part. Denne riskerar då att missgynnas med anledning av rättens processledande åtgärder. Att enskild riskerar att missgynnas på likande vis rimmar illa med förvaltningsprocessens funktion.
Om några utredande åtgärder blir aktuella från domstolens sida, torde dessa stanna vid materiell processledning avseende språkliga brister. Ett ansvar för att komma till rätta med språkliga brister och klargöra vad part verkligen vill åvilar samtliga domstolar, förvaltningsdomstol såsom allmän.
Förekomsten av de fall när rätten ex officio för in utredning måste med anledning av detta vara lätträknade. Att rätten i dessa mål beaktar och
5
grundar sitt avgörande på omständigheter vilka part ej åberopat framstår som mindre sannolikt med beaktande av förvaltningsprocessens funktion såsom att erbjuda enskild rättsskydd.
Några processuella fördelar för enskild avseende officialprincipen kan inte skönjas enbart med anledning att processen handläggs enligt FPL. Tanken att officialprincipen är synonym med mål som handläggs enligt FPL torde leda tanken fel, eftersom principen gäller i samtliga processer, i varierande omfattning. Hur omfattande officialprincipens tillämpning är varierar efter målets beskaffenhet. Invändningsmålens karaktär verkar innebära att rätten tillämpar officialprincipen restriktivt. (Less)
Abstract
The distribution of roles between the parties and the court has long been the subject of discussion in legal writing. Questions related to circumstances that cause the court to satisfy party interests through direction of proceedings or other investigative measures often leads to complex reasoning related the function of the different procedures, those of civil procedure and administrative judicial procedure.
The court's activities in this regard are attributable to the official principle, which describes and summarizes the court's role regarding the responsibility for the investigation and the material in a process. The official principle is according to the legislative history of the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act (1971:291),... (More)
The distribution of roles between the parties and the court has long been the subject of discussion in legal writing. Questions related to circumstances that cause the court to satisfy party interests through direction of proceedings or other investigative measures often leads to complex reasoning related the function of the different procedures, those of civil procedure and administrative judicial procedure.
The court's activities in this regard are attributable to the official principle, which describes and summarizes the court's role regarding the responsibility for the investigation and the material in a process. The official principle is according to the legislative history of the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act (1971:291), abridged FPL, characteristic of the administrative judicial procedure. This is so that courts could produce materially accurate judgments. The existence of these is a prerequisite for being able to offer individual legal security. 8 § FPL provides that the court shall ensure that a certain case is as well investigated, as its nature requires. The provision reflects the position of the official principle in administrative judicial procedure.
At a first glance, there is reason to conclude that the notion that claims that the application of the official principle is more comprehensive in the administrative judicial procedure than in the civil procedure. There is reason to ask the question what is applicable in cases handled under the rules of FPL, but which bear a resemblance to cases handled under civil procedure. Cases regarding objection concerning a registration related to a specific intellectual property, hereinafter opposition-cases, show resemblances to such cases. Does the processing of these cases under the FPL mean that other procedural effects related to official principle arises, than if the case would come to be governed by civil procedural rules? What does this mean for a party in the procedure?
Crucial to the extent of the administrative court responsibility for the investigation is the nature and the characteristics of a case. An administrative court has a responsibility that a case is as well investigated, as its nature requires. This means that the investigation must be sufficient in order that the case should be decided. Once the investigation is considered sufficient that a case may be resolved depends on what the material characteristics of the case and what party relations which characterize the case. The greater importance of a case is, all the more necessary for the investigation to be considered adequate.
Factors that may affect the material character of a case, is what interests and the strength of those interests that could be considered to characterize the case. A case of large values must be regarded as more significant than those of small values. However, it is difficult to conjure
1
up some generally applicable guidelines, the assessment shall be made in this regard, but the assessment must be made in each case.
As for cases regarding objection concerning a registration of intellectual property, the factors that shape the character of the specific cases eases the courts responsibility for the investigation, and the application of the official principle. The individual interests that characterize these objection-cases are primarily commercial in its nature and exhibit resemblance to the civil procedural disputes.
Restriction related to investigative actions and other direction of proceedings that the court undertakes would then be to advocate. The risk is that by the court in its investigative measures may encourage one party to the detriment of the others. This means that the court's role as independent and objective may be challenged, this is at odds with the process function.
It tends to be easier to assess the magnitude of the court's responsibility regarding the investigation by studying the relations of the parties. Of the relevant practice presented in the paper, it appears that the relationship between the parties helps to determinate the scope of the court's investigative function.
Objection-cases constitute cases consisting of more than one party. The following study shows that the individual parties in the majority of cases are represented by legal representatives specialized in their field. The fact that both parties are represented by skilled counsel and thus are fairly equal is acknowledged in reasoning by the administrative courts. The relationship between the parties appears to be an important factor when assessing whether a responsibility of investigation rests on the court. The subject of the dispute concerning objection-cases is the right to a valid protection of a certain intellectual property. Two equal parties represented by legal counsel, argue about a better right to a property undeniably gives the target a commercial character. Under these circumstances, the court should be restrictive when it comes to investigative measures on the process material.
If the court by means of direction of proceedings or other investigative measures, the possibility exists that this disadvantages individual counterparty. Such conduct by the court must be regarded as contrary to the role of the administrative courts and the administrative judicial procedure. Although the court may use the direction of proceedings in order to help an individual against a public counterpart, there is always another private party in objection-cases. The counterparty could then be disadvantaged. The risk of disadvantaging one private party is inconsistent with the function of the administrative judicial procedure, that of ensuring legal security for private citizens. If the court in connection to objection-cases conducts any investigative actions they will most probably stop at the direction of proceedings relating to language deficits. A responsibility to come to terms with language
2
deficits and clarify what parties really want is binding on all courts, administrative courts as public.
The incidence of cases where the court ex officio enriches a case on it own without any activity regarding direction of proceedings must for this reason be easily counted. If the court would take into account material that the parties have not invoked in objection-cases, this would surely constitute a conflict with the function of the administrative judicial procedure, such as providing legal protection for individuals. Some procedural advantages for the individual regarding the official principle cannot be discerned by reason only that the process is governed according to FPL. The idea that the official principle is synonymous with cases governed by FPL should lead the thought wrong, because the principle applies in all processes, to varying degrees. How extensive the application of the official principle varies by the nature of the case. As for objection-cases, the following study implies that the administrative court applies the official principle strictly. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Roos, Daniel LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
The official principle and its application in administrative judicial procedure - especially regarding responsibility concerning the investigation in opposition-cases related to intellectual property rights
course
JURM02 20131
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
förvaltningsrätt, administrative law, förvaltningsprocessrätt, administrative judicial procedure
language
Swedish
id
3805877
date added to LUP
2013-07-23 09:14:09
date last changed
2013-07-23 09:14:09
@misc{3805877,
  abstract     = {The distribution of roles between the parties and the court has long been the subject of discussion in legal writing. Questions related to circumstances that cause the court to satisfy party interests through direction of proceedings or other investigative measures often leads to complex reasoning related the function of the different procedures, those of civil procedure and administrative judicial procedure.
The court's activities in this regard are attributable to the official principle, which describes and summarizes the court's role regarding the responsibility for the investigation and the material in a process. The official principle is according to the legislative history of the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act (1971:291), abridged FPL, characteristic of the administrative judicial procedure. This is so that courts could produce materially accurate judgments. The existence of these is a prerequisite for being able to offer individual legal security. 8 § FPL provides that the court shall ensure that a certain case is as well investigated, as its nature requires. The provision reflects the position of the official principle in administrative judicial procedure.
At a first glance, there is reason to conclude that the notion that claims that the application of the official principle is more comprehensive in the administrative judicial procedure than in the civil procedure. There is reason to ask the question what is applicable in cases handled under the rules of FPL, but which bear a resemblance to cases handled under civil procedure. Cases regarding objection concerning a registration related to a specific intellectual property, hereinafter opposition-cases, show resemblances to such cases. Does the processing of these cases under the FPL mean that other procedural effects related to official principle arises, than if the case would come to be governed by civil procedural rules? What does this mean for a party in the procedure?
Crucial to the extent of the administrative court responsibility for the investigation is the nature and the characteristics of a case. An administrative court has a responsibility that a case is as well investigated, as its nature requires. This means that the investigation must be sufficient in order that the case should be decided. Once the investigation is considered sufficient that a case may be resolved depends on what the material characteristics of the case and what party relations which characterize the case. The greater importance of a case is, all the more necessary for the investigation to be considered adequate.
Factors that may affect the material character of a case, is what interests and the strength of those interests that could be considered to characterize the case. A case of large values must be regarded as more significant than those of small values. However, it is difficult to conjure
1
up some generally applicable guidelines, the assessment shall be made in this regard, but the assessment must be made in each case.
As for cases regarding objection concerning a registration of intellectual property, the factors that shape the character of the specific cases eases the courts responsibility for the investigation, and the application of the official principle. The individual interests that characterize these objection-cases are primarily commercial in its nature and exhibit resemblance to the civil procedural disputes.
Restriction related to investigative actions and other direction of proceedings that the court undertakes would then be to advocate. The risk is that by the court in its investigative measures may encourage one party to the detriment of the others. This means that the court's role as independent and objective may be challenged, this is at odds with the process function.
It tends to be easier to assess the magnitude of the court's responsibility regarding the investigation by studying the relations of the parties. Of the relevant practice presented in the paper, it appears that the relationship between the parties helps to determinate the scope of the court's investigative function.
Objection-cases constitute cases consisting of more than one party. The following study shows that the individual parties in the majority of cases are represented by legal representatives specialized in their field. The fact that both parties are represented by skilled counsel and thus are fairly equal is acknowledged in reasoning by the administrative courts. The relationship between the parties appears to be an important factor when assessing whether a responsibility of investigation rests on the court. The subject of the dispute concerning objection-cases is the right to a valid protection of a certain intellectual property. Two equal parties represented by legal counsel, argue about a better right to a property undeniably gives the target a commercial character. Under these circumstances, the court should be restrictive when it comes to investigative measures on the process material.
If the court by means of direction of proceedings or other investigative measures, the possibility exists that this disadvantages individual counterparty. Such conduct by the court must be regarded as contrary to the role of the administrative courts and the administrative judicial procedure. Although the court may use the direction of proceedings in order to help an individual against a public counterpart, there is always another private party in objection-cases. The counterparty could then be disadvantaged. The risk of disadvantaging one private party is inconsistent with the function of the administrative judicial procedure, that of ensuring legal security for private citizens. If the court in connection to objection-cases conducts any investigative actions they will most probably stop at the direction of proceedings relating to language deficits. A responsibility to come to terms with language
2
deficits and clarify what parties really want is binding on all courts, administrative courts as public.
The incidence of cases where the court ex officio enriches a case on it own without any activity regarding direction of proceedings must for this reason be easily counted. If the court would take into account material that the parties have not invoked in objection-cases, this would surely constitute a conflict with the function of the administrative judicial procedure, such as providing legal protection for individuals. Some procedural advantages for the individual regarding the official principle cannot be discerned by reason only that the process is governed according to FPL. The idea that the official principle is synonymous with cases governed by FPL should lead the thought wrong, because the principle applies in all processes, to varying degrees. How extensive the application of the official principle varies by the nature of the case. As for objection-cases, the following study implies that the administrative court applies the official principle strictly.},
  author       = {Roos, Daniel},
  keyword      = {förvaltningsrätt,administrative law,förvaltningsprocessrätt,administrative judicial procedure},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Officialprincipen och dess tillämpning i förvaltningsmål – särskilt om ansvaret för utredningen i invändningsmål rörande immateriella rättigheter},
  year         = {2013},
}