Advanced

Ne bis in idem - Om dubbelbestraffning vid trafikbrott och körkortsåterkallelse

Axelson, Jonas LU (2014) LAGF03 20141
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Sverige har två olika sanktionssystem som kan aktualiseras när en person exempelvis kört bil under påverkan av alkohol. För en och samma gärning kan en person i två olika förfaranden få ett bötesstraff eller till och med fängelsestraff men även få sitt körkort återkallat av Transportstyrelsen.

I svensk rätt har vi principen res judicata som innebär att en person inte får bli föremål för rättslig prövning eller straffad mer än en gång för samma gärning. På latin heter principen ne bis in idem och brukar benämnas förbudet mot dubbel bestraffning eller dubbel lagföring. Principen om ne bis in idem återfinns även i Europakonventionen angående skydd för de mänskliga rättigheterna och här i artikel 4 sjunde tilläggsprotokollet. Här stadgas... (More)
Sverige har två olika sanktionssystem som kan aktualiseras när en person exempelvis kört bil under påverkan av alkohol. För en och samma gärning kan en person i två olika förfaranden få ett bötesstraff eller till och med fängelsestraff men även få sitt körkort återkallat av Transportstyrelsen.

I svensk rätt har vi principen res judicata som innebär att en person inte får bli föremål för rättslig prövning eller straffad mer än en gång för samma gärning. På latin heter principen ne bis in idem och brukar benämnas förbudet mot dubbel bestraffning eller dubbel lagföring. Principen om ne bis in idem återfinns även i Europakonventionen angående skydd för de mänskliga rättigheterna och här i artikel 4 sjunde tilläggsprotokollet. Här stadgas att ingen får lagföras eller straffas mer än en gång för samma brott. Principen regleras även i artikel 50 i EU:s rättighetsstadga. Frågan om den svenska ordningen med körkortsåterkallelse och trafikbrott i separata förfaranden och dess förenlighet med Europakonventionen var i början av 2000-talet, närmare bestämt i målet Nilsson mot Sverige, uppe för prövning i Europadomstolen. Då ansågs den svenska ordningen inte strida mot konventionen.

Fram till juni 2013 har Sverige haft ett liknande system gällande skattebrott och påförande av skattetillägg. I rättsfallet NJA 2013 s. 502 underkände Högsta domstolen denna ordning. En av mina frågeställningar bygger på frågan om den ny inställning som Högsta domstolen tagit vad gäller skattebrott och skattetillägg även borde gälla ordningen för trafikbrott och körkortsåterkallelse. Min andra frågeställning är bredare och bygger mer generellt på frågan huruvida den svenska ordningen på körkortsområdet är förenlig med Europakonventionen. Med ett kritiskt granskande perspektiv har jag studerat främst lagtext, praxis från Europadomstolen och förarbeten.

Frågan om den svenska ordningen med dubbla förfaranden för trafikbrott och körkortsåterkallelse och dess förenlighet med Europakonventionen har efter nyss nämnda avgöranden åter uppkommit i de svenska underrätterna. Aktuella frågor är om en körkortsåterkallelse utgör straff i konventionens mening, om en person anses blivit dubbelt bestraffad och om förändringen på skatteområdet även gäller körkortsområdet. Europadomstolen har fastslagit att Europakonventionen är ett levande dokument som ska tillämpas utifrån dagens förhållanden. Dess bestämmelser ska enligt Europadomstolen inte tillämpas så att de blir illusoriska och teoretiska utan ska vara praktiska och effektiva. Min slutsats är att ordningen ska bedömas på sätt som den bedömning som har gjorts rörande skattetillägg och skattebrott. Individens rättsäkerhet ska ligga i fokus och Europakonventionen ska tolkas utifrån dagens förhållanden och en förändring av ordningen bör därför ske. (Less)
Abstract
Sweden has two different systems of sanctions that may arise when a person has committed a serious offense in traffic. For the same conduct a person can in two different proceedings be sentenced to pay a fee or even imprisonment and also have his driving license withdrawn by the Transport Agency (Transportstyrelsen).

In Swedish law the principle of res judicata is to prevent a person from being subject to judicial review or be punished more than once for the same conduct. In Latin the principle is called ne bis in idem and usually referred to as the prohibition of double punishment or double jeopardy. In the European Convention on Human Rights the principle of ne bis in idem is regulated in the Article 4 of Protocol No. 7. This... (More)
Sweden has two different systems of sanctions that may arise when a person has committed a serious offense in traffic. For the same conduct a person can in two different proceedings be sentenced to pay a fee or even imprisonment and also have his driving license withdrawn by the Transport Agency (Transportstyrelsen).

In Swedish law the principle of res judicata is to prevent a person from being subject to judicial review or be punished more than once for the same conduct. In Latin the principle is called ne bis in idem and usually referred to as the prohibition of double punishment or double jeopardy. In the European Convention on Human Rights the principle of ne bis in idem is regulated in the Article 4 of Protocol No. 7. This principle should prevent prosecution, trial and punishment to be made more than once for the same offence. The principle is also regulated in Article 50 in The Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union. The question whether the Swedish system with two different proceedings concerning withdrawal of driving license and traffic offense and its compatibility with the convention was in the early 2000’s, more specifically in the case Nilsson v. Sweden, tried in the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The Court then ruled that the Swedish system was compatible with Article 4 of Protocol No. 7.

Until June 2013, Sweden had a similar system with two proceedings for punishment for tax offense and tax surcharge. In the case NJA 2013 s. 502 the Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen) condemned the Swedish system. My first question is based on the question whether the new attitude that the Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen) has taken regarding tax offenses and tax surcharge should also apply the system with traffic offenses and withdrawal of drivers license. My second question is wider and based more generally on whether the Swedish order of the license area is compatible with the Convention. With a critical perspective, I have studied mainly legal acts, case law from the ECtHR and Swedish legislative history.

The Swedish system with two different proceedings for traffic offenses and the withdrawal of driving license and the question whether its compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights has since the last mentioned rulings been tried in the Swedish lower court. The questions to be answered are whether the withdrawal of a driving license constitutes a criminal sanction and whether a person is considered to be subject to double jeopardy. The ECtHR has ruled that the European Convention is a living instrument that must be interpreted in the light of the present day-conditions. Moreover it has ruled that its provisions must be interpreted and applied in a manner not to become illusory and theoretical but practical and effective. My conclusion is that the system should be assessed similar to the assessment made on the field of taxation. The legal security of individuals should be taken in focus and the European Convention on Human Rights should be interpreted based on present day conditions and change of the Swedish system should be done. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Axelson, Jonas LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20141
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
processrätt, straffrätt, ne bis in idem, dubbelbestraffning, Europakonventionen, dubbelbestraffningsförbud
language
Swedish
id
4449188
date added to LUP
2014-07-04 11:10:07
date last changed
2014-07-04 11:10:07
@misc{4449188,
  abstract     = {Sweden has two different systems of sanctions that may arise when a person has committed a serious offense in traffic. For the same conduct a person can in two different proceedings be sentenced to pay a fee or even imprisonment and also have his driving license withdrawn by the Transport Agency (Transportstyrelsen). 

In Swedish law the principle of res judicata is to prevent a person from being subject to judicial review or be punished more than once for the same conduct. In Latin the principle is called ne bis in idem and usually referred to as the prohibition of double punishment or double jeopardy. In the European Convention on Human Rights the principle of ne bis in idem is regulated in the Article 4 of Protocol No. 7. This principle should prevent prosecution, trial and punishment to be made more than once for the same offence. The principle is also regulated in Article 50 in The Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union. The question whether the Swedish system with two different proceedings concerning withdrawal of driving license and traffic offense and its compatibility with the convention was in the early 2000’s, more specifically in the case Nilsson v. Sweden, tried in the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The Court then ruled that the Swedish system was compatible with Article 4 of Protocol No. 7.

Until June 2013, Sweden had a similar system with two proceedings for punishment for tax offense and tax surcharge. In the case NJA 2013 s. 502 the Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen) condemned the Swedish system. My first question is based on the question whether the new attitude that the Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen) has taken regarding tax offenses and tax surcharge should also apply the system with traffic offenses and withdrawal of drivers license. My second question is wider and based more generally on whether the Swedish order of the license area is compatible with the Convention. With a critical perspective, I have studied mainly legal acts, case law from the ECtHR and Swedish legislative history. 

The Swedish system with two different proceedings for traffic offenses and the withdrawal of driving license and the question whether its compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights has since the last mentioned rulings been tried in the Swedish lower court. The questions to be answered are whether the withdrawal of a driving license constitutes a criminal sanction and whether a person is considered to be subject to double jeopardy. The ECtHR has ruled that the European Convention is a living instrument that must be interpreted in the light of the present day-conditions. Moreover it has ruled that its provisions must be interpreted and applied in a manner not to become illusory and theoretical but practical and effective. My conclusion is that the system should be assessed similar to the assessment made on the field of taxation. The legal security of individuals should be taken in focus and the European Convention on Human Rights should be interpreted based on present day conditions and change of the Swedish system should be done.},
  author       = {Axelson, Jonas},
  keyword      = {processrätt,straffrätt,ne bis in idem,dubbelbestraffning,Europakonventionen,dubbelbestraffningsförbud},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Ne bis in idem - Om dubbelbestraffning vid trafikbrott och körkortsåterkallelse},
  year         = {2014},
}