Prejudikat – samband mellan rättsprincip och rättsfakta - En komparativ studie av rättsfall från Högsta domstolen, Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen och Europadomstolen
(2013) JURM02 20132Department of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Högsta domstolens roll som prejudikatbildande instans förstärktes genom fullföljdsreformen 1971. Genom reformen begränsades Högsta domstolens möjlighet att bevilja prövningstillstånd mot bakgrund av den anledningen att de mål som Högsta domstolen avgjorde skulle fungera som ett komplement till lagstiftningen och bidra till en konsekvent rättstillämpning.
I allt större utsträckning har Europadomstolens avgöranden kommit att spela roll i svensk rättspraxis. Det beror på den multipolära miljö som både Högsta domstolen och Europadomstolen befinner sig i, där de tvingas att samspela med varandra på ett tydligare sätt än innan, vilket kan påverka den nuvarande rättskälleordningen och ge rättspraxis en högre status än tidigare.
Ett... (More) - Högsta domstolens roll som prejudikatbildande instans förstärktes genom fullföljdsreformen 1971. Genom reformen begränsades Högsta domstolens möjlighet att bevilja prövningstillstånd mot bakgrund av den anledningen att de mål som Högsta domstolen avgjorde skulle fungera som ett komplement till lagstiftningen och bidra till en konsekvent rättstillämpning.
I allt större utsträckning har Europadomstolens avgöranden kommit att spela roll i svensk rättspraxis. Det beror på den multipolära miljö som både Högsta domstolen och Europadomstolen befinner sig i, där de tvingas att samspela med varandra på ett tydligare sätt än innan, vilket kan påverka den nuvarande rättskälleordningen och ge rättspraxis en högre status än tidigare.
Ett prejudikat kan sägas vara en händelse, ofta i form av ett avgörande, som vi använder i vägledande syfte i rättstillämpningen genom att göra en parallell mellan en händelse och en annan. Det kan också definieras genom ett urskiljande av en allmän rättsprincip, ratio decidendi. Vilken metod som en rättstillämpare ska använda för att urskilja rättsprincipen i rättsfallet är ännu ej fastslagen, varken i svensk rättsordningen eller inom Europadomstolen och bland konventionsstaterna. Det råder heller inte någon allmän konsensus bland rättstillämpare när det gäller prejudikatets bindande verkan. I Europadomstolen såväl som i Högsta domstolen anses prejudikatet ha en informellt bindande verkan vilket generellt kan sägas framgår av praxis.
När rättsvetenskapen belyser frågan om prejudikatets bindande verkan, anses en bundenhet till rättspraxis ge uttryck för att Högsta domstolen och Europadomstolen har en lagstiftande funktion snarare än en lagtolkande funktion. Hur den maktfördelningen ska ske är obesvarad i framställningen.
Vid tolkningen av ett rättsfall kommer rättsfallstolkaren stötta på rättsfakta och rättsprinciper. Rättsfakta är omständigheter som kan kopplas till en rättsföljd men de kan också bestå av flera omständigheter som tillsammans bildar ett rättsfaktum. I framställningen har jag försökt urskilja rättsfakta och rättsprinciper i fyra utvalda rättsfall avseende jävsfrågor för att se om dessa två begrepp är beroende av varandra.
Utifrån uppstasen kan inga övergripande slutsatser göras när det gäller att finna ett samband mellan rättsprincip och rättsfakta i ett prejudikat. Av de svenska avgörandena framgår det att det inte finns ett samband mellan rättsprincip och rättsfakta och att det då är rättsfakta tillsammans med domen som blir prejudicerande i framtiden. Avgörandena från Europadomstolen tyder däremot på att det dels kan vara en fristående rättsprincip som är prejudicerande, dels en rättsprincip tillsammans med rättsfakta. (Less) - Abstract
- The Supreme Court's role as a precedent making body was strengthened by the reform in 1971. After the reform the Supreme Court’s ability to grant leave to appeal was limited for that very reason that the objectives the Supreme Court decided would serve as a complement to legislation and contribute to a coherent law.
Thanks to the multipolar environment which both the Supreme Court as well as the European Court of Human Rights can be considered to be in, the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights has come to play an important role in Swedish law of precedents. They are now forced to interact with each other more clearly than before, which can affect the current legal sources regime and give precedents an increased status.
A... (More) - The Supreme Court's role as a precedent making body was strengthened by the reform in 1971. After the reform the Supreme Court’s ability to grant leave to appeal was limited for that very reason that the objectives the Supreme Court decided would serve as a complement to legislation and contribute to a coherent law.
Thanks to the multipolar environment which both the Supreme Court as well as the European Court of Human Rights can be considered to be in, the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights has come to play an important role in Swedish law of precedents. They are now forced to interact with each other more clearly than before, which can affect the current legal sources regime and give precedents an increased status.
A precedent can be said to be an event, often in the form of a decision, which we use for indicative purposes in judicial practice by doing a parallel between one event and another. It can also be defined by a discernment of a general principle, the ratio decidendi. The method that a legal practitioners should use to distinguish the legal principle in a case is not yet settled in law, neither in the Swedish legal system or in the European Court and among it’s States Parties. There is no general consensus among practitioners regarding the binding force of a precedent. The European Court as well as the Supreme Court and other law practitioners are considered only to be informally bound to precedents.
If the precedent is given a formal binding force it represents a strong court and expresses that the courts function is to create law, rather than interpreting law. Which role that the Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights can be said to have, is yet unanswered.
When interpreting a precedent the interpreter will encounter with the term of a general legal principle and facts. The facts can often be linked to a certain sanction. It can be one single fact as well as several factors in combination with each other.
In the analysis I have discerned the facts and the legal principles in four selected cases concerning impartiality to see if these two concepts are interdependent. Based on the paper there can be no overall conclusions made when it comes to finding a link between legal principle and legal facts. From the two Swedish cases it doesn’t seem to be a connection between the legal principle and certain facts in the case. This means that it will only be the certain facts in the specific case together with the decision that can be said to be a precedent. The cases from the European Court of Human Rights on the other hand, show that a general legal principle can stand on it’s on and become a precedent as well as a general principle combined with certain facts in the present case. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/4239206
- author
- Robertsson, Jenny LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- Precedent - relation between a legal principle and certain legal facts - a comparison of precedents from the Supreme Court in Sweden and the European Court of Human Rights
- course
- JURM02 20132
- year
- 2013
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- allmän rättslära, civilrätt
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 4239206
- date added to LUP
- 2014-01-24 10:52:41
- date last changed
- 2014-01-24 10:52:41
@misc{4239206,
abstract = {{The Supreme Court's role as a precedent making body was strengthened by the reform in 1971. After the reform the Supreme Court’s ability to grant leave to appeal was limited for that very reason that the objectives the Supreme Court decided would serve as a complement to legislation and contribute to a coherent law.
Thanks to the multipolar environment which both the Supreme Court as well as the European Court of Human Rights can be considered to be in, the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights has come to play an important role in Swedish law of precedents. They are now forced to interact with each other more clearly than before, which can affect the current legal sources regime and give precedents an increased status.
A precedent can be said to be an event, often in the form of a decision, which we use for indicative purposes in judicial practice by doing a parallel between one event and another. It can also be defined by a discernment of a general principle, the ratio decidendi. The method that a legal practitioners should use to distinguish the legal principle in a case is not yet settled in law, neither in the Swedish legal system or in the European Court and among it’s States Parties. There is no general consensus among practitioners regarding the binding force of a precedent. The European Court as well as the Supreme Court and other law practitioners are considered only to be informally bound to precedents.
If the precedent is given a formal binding force it represents a strong court and expresses that the courts function is to create law, rather than interpreting law. Which role that the Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights can be said to have, is yet unanswered.
When interpreting a precedent the interpreter will encounter with the term of a general legal principle and facts. The facts can often be linked to a certain sanction. It can be one single fact as well as several factors in combination with each other.
In the analysis I have discerned the facts and the legal principles in four selected cases concerning impartiality to see if these two concepts are interdependent. Based on the paper there can be no overall conclusions made when it comes to finding a link between legal principle and legal facts. From the two Swedish cases it doesn’t seem to be a connection between the legal principle and certain facts in the case. This means that it will only be the certain facts in the specific case together with the decision that can be said to be a precedent. The cases from the European Court of Human Rights on the other hand, show that a general legal principle can stand on it’s on and become a precedent as well as a general principle combined with certain facts in the present case.}},
author = {{Robertsson, Jenny}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Prejudikat – samband mellan rättsprincip och rättsfakta - En komparativ studie av rättsfall från Högsta domstolen, Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen och Europadomstolen}},
year = {{2013}},
}