Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Inte ett frivilligt val - Statens skadeståndsansvar till följd av tvångssteriliseringarna av transsexuella

Sverker, Anna LU (2013) JURM02 20132
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Tidigare var ett av kraven enligt den svenska rättsordningen för ändrad könstillhörighet att den sökande var steriliserad eller av annan orsak saknade fortplantningsförmåga. Steriliseringskravet upphävdes i juli 2013 efter att Kammarrätten fastställt att kravet stred mot både 2 kap. RF och EKMR och därför inte skulle tillämpas. Frågan är nu om staten kan anses vara skadeståndsskyldig gentemot de som tvingats sterilisera sig, dels för person-skadan, dels för den ideella skada som kränkningen av 2 kap. RF och EKMR inneburit. Ansvaret kan grundas på införandet, underlåtenheten att upphäva eller tillämpningen av steriliseringskravet.

Den traditionella uppfattningen i svensk rätt har varit att enskilda inte kan grunda ett skadeståndskrav på... (More)
Tidigare var ett av kraven enligt den svenska rättsordningen för ändrad könstillhörighet att den sökande var steriliserad eller av annan orsak saknade fortplantningsförmåga. Steriliseringskravet upphävdes i juli 2013 efter att Kammarrätten fastställt att kravet stred mot både 2 kap. RF och EKMR och därför inte skulle tillämpas. Frågan är nu om staten kan anses vara skadeståndsskyldig gentemot de som tvingats sterilisera sig, dels för person-skadan, dels för den ideella skada som kränkningen av 2 kap. RF och EKMR inneburit. Ansvaret kan grundas på införandet, underlåtenheten att upphäva eller tillämpningen av steriliseringskravet.

Den traditionella uppfattningen i svensk rätt har varit att enskilda inte kan grunda ett skadeståndskrav på 2 kap. RF eller EKMR. För att uppfylla kraven i Artikel 13 EKMR utvecklade HD under 2000-talet en möjlighet att döma ut skadestånd utan stöd i lag när EKMR överträtts. Om skadestånd nu även kan utdömas utan lagstöd när 2 kap. RF åsidosatts är dock oklart.

Uppsatsens slutsats är att staten gjort sig skyldig till fel eller försummelse i myndighetsutövning främst genom att inte upphäva steriliseringskravet. Staten har därigenom brustit i sin skyldighet att tillförsäkra enskilda ett tillräckligt skydd för rättigheterna i 2 kap. RF och EKMR. Staten har även ett visst ansvar för att myndigheterna underlåtit att pröva steriliserings-kravets förenlighet med grundlagen och EKMR. Att grunda ansvaret på kravets införande blir dock problematiskt, då det inte kan fastslås att statens införande av kravet har varit culpöst. Grundas ansvaret på underlåtenheten att upphäva steriliseringskravet lär rätten till skadestånd inte ha preskriberats. Då kravet nu har upphävts aktualiseras inte heller taleförbudet i 3 kap. 7 § SkL.

Om ersättning ska utgå för den rent ideella skadan beror på om det krävs för att uppfylla kraven i Artikel 13 EKMR. Den rent ideella skadan är av så allvarlig art att den inte kan anses gottgjord enbart genom att kränkningen erkänns eller genom den ersättning som kan utgå för personskadan enligt 3 kap. 2 § SkL. Eftersom någon brottslig handling inte föreligger kan kränk-ningen inte ersättas enligt SkL, varför skadestånd utgår direkt grundat på EKMR. Troligtvis hade skadestånd inte kunnat utgå direkt grundat på 2 kap. RF.

Även om en möjlighet till skadestånd vid överträdelser av EKMR har utvecklats i praxis är det tydligt att lagstiftning på området behövs. Bara genom väl fungerande ersättningsmöjligheter och ett samspel mellan rättighetssystemen kan rättighetsskyddet få fullt genomslag i svensk rätt. (Less)
Abstract
Until the 1st of July 2013, one of the requirements according to Swedish law to change gender identification was that the applicant had to be sterilised or by other reasons remain permanently infertile. The requirement was abolished after a ruling from the Administrative Court of Appeal, which stated that the requirement violated both the ECHR and Chapter 2 of the Instrument of Government. The question now is whether the state may be liable to pay damages to those who have been forced to undergo sterilisation, partly for personal injury and partly for the non-pecuniary damage caused from the violation of the ECHR and the Instrument of Government. The liability may be based on the introduction, the failure to abolish, or the application of... (More)
Until the 1st of July 2013, one of the requirements according to Swedish law to change gender identification was that the applicant had to be sterilised or by other reasons remain permanently infertile. The requirement was abolished after a ruling from the Administrative Court of Appeal, which stated that the requirement violated both the ECHR and Chapter 2 of the Instrument of Government. The question now is whether the state may be liable to pay damages to those who have been forced to undergo sterilisation, partly for personal injury and partly for the non-pecuniary damage caused from the violation of the ECHR and the Instrument of Government. The liability may be based on the introduction, the failure to abolish, or the application of the requirement.

The traditional view in Swedish law has been that individuals cannot base a claim on the ECHR or the Instrument of Government. To meet the requirements of Article 13 of the ECHR the Supreme Court in the 2000s developed the possibility to impose liability without legal basis for violations of the ECHR. However, whether liability can be imposed when Chapter 2 of the Instrument of Government has been violated is still unclear.

The conclusion of the thesis is that the State is liable mainly for the failure to abolish the sterilisation requirement. The State has failed in its obligation to guarantee the human rights in the Instrument of Government and the ECHR. The State is also partly responsible for the fact that the authorities have applied the requirement, instead of examining whether the requirement was compatible with the Instrument of Government and the ECHR. Basing the liability on the introduction of the requirement is more difficult, as negligence of the State cannot be ascertained. If the claim is based on the failure to abolish the requirement, the claim is likely not to be statute barred. As the requirement has been abrogated, the claim will not be constrained by the prohibition in Chapter 3, Section 7 of the Tort Liability Act.

Whether non-pecuniary damages should be ruled or not depends on the requirements of Article 13 of the ECHR. The mere finding of a violation, or the fact that damages probably will be given for the personal injury under Chapter 3, Section 2 of the Tort Liability Act, cannot remedy the non-pecuniary damage. The non-pecuniary damage cannot be compensated based on the Tort Liability Act, and remedies will therefore be given directly based on the ECHR. It would probably not been possible to rule on remedies directly based on the Chapter 2 of the Instrument of Government.

Even though the Supreme Court has developed a way to redress violations of the ECHR, it is evident that legislation in this area is desirable. Only through a well-functioning scheme for remedies and interplay between the different systems safeguarding human rights can the protection for human rights get full impact under Swedish law. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Sverker, Anna LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Not a voluntary choice - The State's liability due to the forced sterilisations of transsexuals
course
JURM02 20132
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Statens skadeståndsansvar, 2 kap. regeringsformen, Europakonventionen, Skadeståndsrätt, Mänskliga rättigheter
language
Swedish
id
4222786
date added to LUP
2014-01-15 14:38:31
date last changed
2014-01-15 14:38:31
@misc{4222786,
  abstract     = {Until the 1st of July 2013, one of the requirements according to Swedish law to change gender identification was that the applicant had to be sterilised or by other reasons remain permanently infertile. The requirement was abolished after a ruling from the Administrative Court of Appeal, which stated that the requirement violated both the ECHR and Chapter 2 of the Instrument of Government. The question now is whether the state may be liable to pay damages to those who have been forced to undergo sterilisation, partly for personal injury and partly for the non-pecuniary damage caused from the violation of the ECHR and the Instrument of Government. The liability may be based on the introduction, the failure to abolish, or the application of the requirement. 

The traditional view in Swedish law has been that individuals cannot base a claim on the ECHR or the Instrument of Government. To meet the requirements of Article 13 of the ECHR the Supreme Court in the 2000s developed the possibility to impose liability without legal basis for violations of the ECHR. However, whether liability can be imposed when Chapter 2 of the Instrument of Government has been violated is still unclear.

The conclusion of the thesis is that the State is liable mainly for the failure to abolish the sterilisation requirement. The State has failed in its obligation to guarantee the human rights in the Instrument of Government and the ECHR. The State is also partly responsible for the fact that the authorities have applied the requirement, instead of examining whether the requirement was compatible with the Instrument of Government and the ECHR. Basing the liability on the introduction of the requirement is more difficult, as negligence of the State cannot be ascertained. If the claim is based on the failure to abolish the requirement, the claim is likely not to be statute barred. As the requirement has been abrogated, the claim will not be constrained by the prohibition in Chapter 3, Section 7 of the Tort Liability Act. 

Whether non-pecuniary damages should be ruled or not depends on the requirements of Article 13 of the ECHR. The mere finding of a violation, or the fact that damages probably will be given for the personal injury under Chapter 3, Section 2 of the Tort Liability Act, cannot remedy the non-pecuniary damage. The non-pecuniary damage cannot be compensated based on the Tort Liability Act, and remedies will therefore be given directly based on the ECHR. It would probably not been possible to rule on remedies directly based on the Chapter 2 of the Instrument of Government.

Even though the Supreme Court has developed a way to redress violations of the ECHR, it is evident that legislation in this area is desirable. Only through a well-functioning scheme for remedies and interplay between the different systems safeguarding human rights can the protection for human rights get full impact under Swedish law.},
  author       = {Sverker, Anna},
  keyword      = {Statens skadeståndsansvar,2 kap. regeringsformen,Europakonventionen,Skadeståndsrätt,Mänskliga rättigheter},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Inte ett frivilligt val - Statens skadeståndsansvar till följd av tvångssteriliseringarna av transsexuella},
  year         = {2013},
}