Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Officialprincipen i migrationsmål - faktorer som påverkar omfattningen av migrationsdomstolarnas utredningsansvar

Eriksson, Madelene LU (2013) JURM02 20132
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Denna uppsats behandlar ingående hur officialprincipen tillämpas i de svenska migrationsdomstolarna. Uppsatsen tar, efter en kort introduktion till migrations- processen i Sverige, avstamp i en förvaltningsprocessuell diskussion kring vad som omfattas av en förvaltningsdomstols utredningsskyldighet. Olika faktorer som påverkar utredningsskyldigheten tas upp. Därefter övergår uppsatsens fokus till hur handläggningen ser ut i migrationsdomstolarna, med ett försök att analysera de olika faktorernas påverkan på utredningsskyldigheten i just migrationsmål.

Ett försök till kartläggning av de olika faktorer som påverkar utredningsskyldigheten visar att det inte är helt enkelt att särskilja dem från varandra. Enligt förarbetena till... (More)
Denna uppsats behandlar ingående hur officialprincipen tillämpas i de svenska migrationsdomstolarna. Uppsatsen tar, efter en kort introduktion till migrations- processen i Sverige, avstamp i en förvaltningsprocessuell diskussion kring vad som omfattas av en förvaltningsdomstols utredningsskyldighet. Olika faktorer som påverkar utredningsskyldigheten tas upp. Därefter övergår uppsatsens fokus till hur handläggningen ser ut i migrationsdomstolarna, med ett försök att analysera de olika faktorernas påverkan på utredningsskyldigheten i just migrationsmål.

Ett försök till kartläggning av de olika faktorer som påverkar utredningsskyldigheten visar att det inte är helt enkelt att särskilja dem från varandra. Enligt förarbetena till förvaltningsprocesslagen (1971:291, FPL), som är tillämplig lag också i migrationsdomstolarna, ska domstolen se till att utredningen blir fullgod. Detta betyder, enligt lydelsen i 8 § FPL, att målet blir så utrett som dess beskaffenhet kräver. Målets beskaffenhet innefattar vilken typ av mål det är, vilken betydelse det har för den enskilde, vilket partsförhållandet är och hur bevisbördan är fördelad. Även instansordningen och vilken typ av process det är påverkar. Dessutom kan sökandens tillgång till ombud påverka domstolens utredningsskyldighet enligt förarbetena. Eftersom 8 § FPL är generellt tillämplig i alla förvaltningsmål är det ganska oklart vad som i varje typ av mål kan förväntas av domstolen. Det är nödvändigt med en öppen formulering för att kraven ska kunna anpassas till varje måltyp, men det orsakar också praktiska problem då den knappast fungerar som vägledning för hur domstolen ska agera i ett enskilt fall.

I migrationsmål finns flera tillämpningsproblem som inte har någon motsvarighet i andra förvaltningsmål. Exempelvis förväntas migrationsdomstolen ha en viss grundkännedom om de länder som de som söker uppehållstillstånd kommer ifrån. Var gränsen ska dras för vad som är allmänt kända fakta och vad som måste föras bevisning om eller tillföras målet särskilt av domstolen är inte alltid helt klart. Dessutom kan den enskilde förvänta sig olika stora insatser av domstolen beroende på vilken typ av migrationsmål det handlar om. Asylansökningar, som skyddas av internationella konventioner och EU-rätten, ska behandlas annorlunda då ett större skyddsbehov anses finnas i dessa mål. Detta innebär att större krav ställs på domstolens handläggning, från svenskt såväl som från internationellt håll.

Slutsatserna som dras i anknytning till syftet och de problemställningar som finns vad gäller migrationsdomstolarnas utredningsansvar är flera. Först och främst konstateras svårigheten med att försöka fastställa hur de olika faktorerna påverkar utredningsskyldigheten. Dessutom diskuteras i analysen problematiken kring var gränsen ska dras angående vad som är notoriska fakta om sökandens hemland och vilken roll ombudet egentligen har i migrationsprocessen. Den främsta slutsatsen består i att den faktor som har störst påverkan på utredningsansvaret i migrationsmålen är vilken betydelse målet har för den enskilde. De eventuella konsekvensernas allvarlighetsgrad vid ett felaktigt beslut påverkar hur stora krav som kan ställas på domstolarnas utredning. (Less)
Abstract
This essay discusses in detail how the ex officio inquiry principle (“officialprincipen”) is applied in the Swedish migration courts. After a brief introduction to the Swedish migration process, a general discussion concerning what is covered by an administrative court’s obligation to investigate is performed. Various factors that affect this obligation are discussed. Focus then shifts towards how the principle is applied in the migration courts, with an attempt to show how the different factors affect the investigative obligation in migration cases.

An attempt to identify the different factors that affect the investigative obligation shows that it is not that simple to distinguish these from one another. According to the preparatory... (More)
This essay discusses in detail how the ex officio inquiry principle (“officialprincipen”) is applied in the Swedish migration courts. After a brief introduction to the Swedish migration process, a general discussion concerning what is covered by an administrative court’s obligation to investigate is performed. Various factors that affect this obligation are discussed. Focus then shifts towards how the principle is applied in the migration courts, with an attempt to show how the different factors affect the investigative obligation in migration cases.

An attempt to identify the different factors that affect the investigative obligation shows that it is not that simple to distinguish these from one another. According to the preparatory works of the Administrative Procedure Act (1971:291, FPL), which is applicable to the migration courts, the court has to ensure that the investigation in the case is adequate. This means, as stated in section 8 FPL, that the case should be as investigated as its nature requires. The nature of the case includes what type of case it is, what impact it has on the individual, the relationship between the parties and how the burden of proof is distributed. Even the court hierarchy and what type of process it is affect the investigative obligation. In addition, the applicant's access to a legal representative affects the court's obligation to investigate according to the preparatory works. Because section 8 FPL is applicable in all administrative cases, it is quite unclear what is expected from the court in each individual case. It is necessary to have an open construction so that the rule is adaptable to each case type, but this also creates practical problems as it hardly serves as a guide to how the court should act in a particular case.

There are several problems concerning the application of the obligation to investigate in migration cases that have no equivalent in other administrative cases. For example, the migration court is expected to have a certain basic knowledge of the countries from which the immigrants and asylum applicants come from. There is no well- defined line between what is generally known facts and what needs to be proved by the applicant or investigated by the court. One can also expect different efforts from the court depending on which type of migration case it is. Asylum applications, which are protected by international conventions and EU law, are to be treated differently because of the greater need for protection in those cases. This means that a big responsibility is to be placed on the migration courts in their proceedings, from national sources as well as from international sources.

The conclusions drawn in the essay concerning the investigative obligation’s application in the migration courts are several. Most importantly, there is a difficulty in determining how the different factors affect the duty to investigate. The analysis also contains a discussion on where the line should be drawn regarding what should be considered notorious facts concerning the applicant's country of origin and what role the legal representative actually plays in the Swedish migration process. The most substantial conclusion is that the most essential factor that the migration courts need to consider is what significance the decision has for the individual. The severity of the eventual consequences from a negative decision corresponds with the investigative measures one can expect from the court. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Eriksson, Madelene LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
The Ex Officio Inquiry Principle in Swedish Migration Cases - Factors That Affect the Scope of the Migration Courts' Investigative Obligation
course
JURM02 20132
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Förvaltningsrätt, förvaltningsprocessrätt, migrationsrätt, officialprincipen, utredningsskyldighet
language
Swedish
id
4238653
date added to LUP
2014-01-27 08:44:39
date last changed
2014-01-27 08:44:39
@misc{4238653,
  abstract     = {This essay discusses in detail how the ex officio inquiry principle (“officialprincipen”) is applied in the Swedish migration courts. After a brief introduction to the Swedish migration process, a general discussion concerning what is covered by an administrative court’s obligation to investigate is performed. Various factors that affect this obligation are discussed. Focus then shifts towards how the principle is applied in the migration courts, with an attempt to show how the different factors affect the investigative obligation in migration cases.

An attempt to identify the different factors that affect the investigative obligation shows that it is not that simple to distinguish these from one another. According to the preparatory works of the Administrative Procedure Act (1971:291, FPL), which is applicable to the migration courts, the court has to ensure that the investigation in the case is adequate. This means, as stated in section 8 FPL, that the case should be as investigated as its nature requires. The nature of the case includes what type of case it is, what impact it has on the individual, the relationship between the parties and how the burden of proof is distributed. Even the court hierarchy and what type of process it is affect the investigative obligation. In addition, the applicant's access to a legal representative affects the court's obligation to investigate according to the preparatory works. Because section 8 FPL is applicable in all administrative cases, it is quite unclear what is expected from the court in each individual case. It is necessary to have an open construction so that the rule is adaptable to each case type, but this also creates practical problems as it hardly serves as a guide to how the court should act in a particular case.

There are several problems concerning the application of the obligation to investigate in migration cases that have no equivalent in other administrative cases. For example, the migration court is expected to have a certain basic knowledge of the countries from which the immigrants and asylum applicants come from. There is no well- defined line between what is generally known facts and what needs to be proved by the applicant or investigated by the court. One can also expect different efforts from the court depending on which type of migration case it is. Asylum applications, which are protected by international conventions and EU law, are to be treated differently because of the greater need for protection in those cases. This means that a big responsibility is to be placed on the migration courts in their proceedings, from national sources as well as from international sources.

The conclusions drawn in the essay concerning the investigative obligation’s application in the migration courts are several. Most importantly, there is a difficulty in determining how the different factors affect the duty to investigate. The analysis also contains a discussion on where the line should be drawn regarding what should be considered notorious facts concerning the applicant's country of origin and what role the legal representative actually plays in the Swedish migration process. The most substantial conclusion is that the most essential factor that the migration courts need to consider is what significance the decision has for the individual. The severity of the eventual consequences from a negative decision corresponds with the investigative measures one can expect from the court.},
  author       = {Eriksson, Madelene},
  keyword      = {Förvaltningsrätt,förvaltningsprocessrätt,migrationsrätt,officialprincipen,utredningsskyldighet},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Officialprincipen i migrationsmål - faktorer som påverkar omfattningen av migrationsdomstolarnas utredningsansvar},
  year         = {2013},
}