Körkortsåterkallelse på grund av brott: Användandet av dubbla förfaranden och principen om ne bis in idem
(2014) LAGF03 20141Faculty of Law
Department of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Den 11 juni 2013 kom Högsta domstolen efter ett avgörande i plenum fram till att rätten att inte bli lagförd eller straffad två gånger för samma brott omfattar det svenska systemet med skattetillägg och påföljd för brott mot skattebrottslagen. Avgörandet väcker frågan om det i svensk rätt finns en liknande problematik på andra rättsområden. Ett exempel där dubbla förfarande används återfinns inom trafikrätten. Vid körkortsåterkallelse på grund av brott används ett förfarande dels inom förvaltningsrätten, dels ett inom straffrätten. I uppsatsen har bakgrunden till detta system undersökts med syftet att förstå varför det har sin nuvarande utformning samt hur det förhåller sig till principen om ne bis in idem. Ne bis in idem, vilket betyder... (More)
- Den 11 juni 2013 kom Högsta domstolen efter ett avgörande i plenum fram till att rätten att inte bli lagförd eller straffad två gånger för samma brott omfattar det svenska systemet med skattetillägg och påföljd för brott mot skattebrottslagen. Avgörandet väcker frågan om det i svensk rätt finns en liknande problematik på andra rättsområden. Ett exempel där dubbla förfarande används återfinns inom trafikrätten. Vid körkortsåterkallelse på grund av brott används ett förfarande dels inom förvaltningsrätten, dels ett inom straffrätten. I uppsatsen har bakgrunden till detta system undersökts med syftet att förstå varför det har sin nuvarande utformning samt hur det förhåller sig till principen om ne bis in idem. Ne bis in idem, vilket betyder inte två gånger om samma sak, är en central straffprocessrättslig princip som innebär att ingen får lagföras eller straffas på nytt för samma brott om denne blivit slutligt frikänd eller dömd.
I uppsatsen konstateras att körkortsåterkallelse historiskt sett har ansetts utgöra en trafiksäkerhetsåtgärd och inte ett straff. I flertalet utredningar som har gjorts under 1900- och 2000-talet har dock körkortsåterkallelse ansetts utgöra en form av straff och en överflyttning till brottmålsprocessen har förordats. Någon reform har dock aldrig ägt rum. Motargumenten har ofta utgjorts av praktiska skäl. En bärande tanke bakom detta har varit att försöka hålla isär vad som är en förvaltningsrättslig fråga och en straffrättslig fråga, vilket blir problematiskt när gränsen luckras upp mellan dessa rättsområden.
Det svenska systemet med dubbla förfaranden vid körkortsåterkallelse på grund av brott har prövats i RÅ 2000 ref 65 och av Europadomstolen i målet Nilsson mot Sverige år 2005. I inget av målen underkändes det svenska systemet men bägge domstolarna ansåg att körkortsåterkallelse utgör ett straff. Regeringsrätten ansåg att den svenska ordningen medför att den som åtalas för ett trafikbrott redan från början vet, eller bör veta, att en lagakraftvunnen fällande dom normalt kommer att följas av ett körkortsingripande. Europadomstolen ansåg att påförandet av sanktioner i två skilda förfaranden har ett tillräcklig sakligt och tidsmässig samband, således innebar inte det förvaltningsrättsliga förfarandet att en ny brottmålsrättegång ägde rum.
I det vägledande målet Zolotukhin mot Ryssland från år 2009 preciserade Europadomstolen innehållet i artikel 4 i tilläggsprotokoll sju i Europakonvention genom att förkunna att frågan om gärningsidentitet är den viktigaste vid artikelns tillämpning. Detta har dock inte genererat någon ny bedömning av det svenska systemet. Vilka konsekvenser HD:s plenumavgörande i NJA 2013 s. 502 kan få för andra rättsområden än skatt är ännu oklart, men avgörandet medför att osäkerheten kring det nuvarande systemet vid körkortsåterkallelse på grund av brott växer. (Less) - Abstract
- On 11 June 2013, the Swedish Supreme Court concluded that the Swedish system with punishment for tax offence and tax surcharges in different proceedings was not compatible with the principle ne bis in idem. The outcome raises the question whether there are similar problems of double proceedings in other legal areas in Sweden. One example where similar double proceedings are being used is found in Swedish traffic law, where a driving licence can be withdrawn in an administrative proceeding after a conviction for a criminal offence in a criminal proceeding has acquired legal force. In this thesis the background to why double proceedings are being used is examined and if the Swedish system is compatible with the principle ne bis in idem. The... (More)
- On 11 June 2013, the Swedish Supreme Court concluded that the Swedish system with punishment for tax offence and tax surcharges in different proceedings was not compatible with the principle ne bis in idem. The outcome raises the question whether there are similar problems of double proceedings in other legal areas in Sweden. One example where similar double proceedings are being used is found in Swedish traffic law, where a driving licence can be withdrawn in an administrative proceeding after a conviction for a criminal offence in a criminal proceeding has acquired legal force. In this thesis the background to why double proceedings are being used is examined and if the Swedish system is compatible with the principle ne bis in idem. The principle ne bis in idem is a fundamental right that protects individuals from being punished or tried twice for the same offence.
Under Swedish law, driving licence-related measures have traditionally been implemented for traffic-safety reasons and have not been regarded as a form of punishment, however in several Official Reports of the Swedish Government (SOU) in the 20th and 21st century the withdrawal of a driving licence in the Swedish system has been regarded as a punishment. Several Official Reports have therefore suggested that the withdrawal of a driving licence should be handled in the criminal proceeding instead of in the administrative proceeding when the withdrawal is based on a criminal offence. Yet no such reform has ever been made. The arguments for upholding the current system have mainly focused on practical issues, with the underlying reason of keeping adminstrative law and criminal law separated form each other. This of course becomes problematic when the line between these two areas of law becomes more dispersed.
The Swedish system was examined by the Swedish Supreme Administrative Court in the case RÅ 2000 ref 65 and by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Nilsson v. Sweden in 2005. In neither of these cases the courts declared the Swedish system incompatible with the principle ne bis in idem. Even though both courts found that the withdrawal of a driving licence in the Swedish system should be regarded as a punishment within the meaning of article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the European Convention, the Swedish Supreme Administrative Court said that the Swedish system implies that a person who is charged with a traffic offence is aware, or ought to be aware, from the outset that an enforceable judgment convicting him or her would normally be followed by measures with regard to his or her driving licence. The European Court of Human Rights declared that there was a sufficiently close connection between the two different sanctions, in substance and in time, and therefore the withdrawal did not imply that the applicant was tried or punished again for an offence for which he had already been finally convicted.
The landmark case of Zolotukhin v. Russia in 2009 made clear that article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the European Convention must be understood as prohibiting the prosecution or trial of a second ‘offence’ in so far as it arises from identical facts or facts which are substantially the same. This has not led to any changes in the Swedish system. The consequences of the Swedish Supreme Court judgement from 11 June 2013 remains unclear for other legal areas than Swedish tax law, nonetheless the judgement has brought further uncertainty to whether or not the current Swedish system, concerning the withdrawal of a driving license based on a criminal offence, is compatible with the principle ne bis in idem. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/4449841
- author
- Gyllenram, Henric LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20141
- year
- 2014
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Europakonventionen, processrätt, straffrätt, förvaltningsrätt, ne bis in idem, körkortsåterkallelse
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 4449841
- date added to LUP
- 2014-06-17 14:11:51
- date last changed
- 2014-06-17 14:11:51
@misc{4449841,
abstract = {{On 11 June 2013, the Swedish Supreme Court concluded that the Swedish system with punishment for tax offence and tax surcharges in different proceedings was not compatible with the principle ne bis in idem. The outcome raises the question whether there are similar problems of double proceedings in other legal areas in Sweden. One example where similar double proceedings are being used is found in Swedish traffic law, where a driving licence can be withdrawn in an administrative proceeding after a conviction for a criminal offence in a criminal proceeding has acquired legal force. In this thesis the background to why double proceedings are being used is examined and if the Swedish system is compatible with the principle ne bis in idem. The principle ne bis in idem is a fundamental right that protects individuals from being punished or tried twice for the same offence.
Under Swedish law, driving licence-related measures have traditionally been implemented for traffic-safety reasons and have not been regarded as a form of punishment, however in several Official Reports of the Swedish Government (SOU) in the 20th and 21st century the withdrawal of a driving licence in the Swedish system has been regarded as a punishment. Several Official Reports have therefore suggested that the withdrawal of a driving licence should be handled in the criminal proceeding instead of in the administrative proceeding when the withdrawal is based on a criminal offence. Yet no such reform has ever been made. The arguments for upholding the current system have mainly focused on practical issues, with the underlying reason of keeping adminstrative law and criminal law separated form each other. This of course becomes problematic when the line between these two areas of law becomes more dispersed.
The Swedish system was examined by the Swedish Supreme Administrative Court in the case RÅ 2000 ref 65 and by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Nilsson v. Sweden in 2005. In neither of these cases the courts declared the Swedish system incompatible with the principle ne bis in idem. Even though both courts found that the withdrawal of a driving licence in the Swedish system should be regarded as a punishment within the meaning of article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the European Convention, the Swedish Supreme Administrative Court said that the Swedish system implies that a person who is charged with a traffic offence is aware, or ought to be aware, from the outset that an enforceable judgment convicting him or her would normally be followed by measures with regard to his or her driving licence. The European Court of Human Rights declared that there was a sufficiently close connection between the two different sanctions, in substance and in time, and therefore the withdrawal did not imply that the applicant was tried or punished again for an offence for which he had already been finally convicted.
The landmark case of Zolotukhin v. Russia in 2009 made clear that article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the European Convention must be understood as prohibiting the prosecution or trial of a second ‘offence’ in so far as it arises from identical facts or facts which are substantially the same. This has not led to any changes in the Swedish system. The consequences of the Swedish Supreme Court judgement from 11 June 2013 remains unclear for other legal areas than Swedish tax law, nonetheless the judgement has brought further uncertainty to whether or not the current Swedish system, concerning the withdrawal of a driving license based on a criminal offence, is compatible with the principle ne bis in idem.}},
author = {{Gyllenram, Henric}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Körkortsåterkallelse på grund av brott: Användandet av dubbla förfaranden och principen om ne bis in idem}},
year = {{2014}},
}