Utredning och omprövning
(2014) JURM02 20141Department of Law
- Abstract
- Before the authorities take a decision, the authorities must have such material, that they can make a decision. The authorities must therefore handle the matter in a way which makes that the authorities get the information and documentation needed to take a decision in the matter. Some strain can be put on the person that comes in with an application. The strain can consist of the documentation and evidence that the applicant has in the matter. The rest of the handling of the matter lies under the authorities through officialprincipen, which means that the authorities are responsible for the matter. The authorities must make sure that the matter is investigated as much as required. The size of this obligation is shifting depending on which... (More)
- Before the authorities take a decision, the authorities must have such material, that they can make a decision. The authorities must therefore handle the matter in a way which makes that the authorities get the information and documentation needed to take a decision in the matter. Some strain can be put on the person that comes in with an application. The strain can consist of the documentation and evidence that the applicant has in the matter. The rest of the handling of the matter lies under the authorities through officialprincipen, which means that the authorities are responsible for the matter. The authorities must make sure that the matter is investigated as much as required. The size of this obligation is shifting depending on which matter the authorities are handling. When a decision is taken, there are ways of controling and changing the decisions that are wrong. It can happen through an appeal from the applicant or if the authority find the error themselves.
This essay treats the relationship between the obligation to investigate a matter and the obligation to ex-officio review a decision that is taken. The relationship is investigated through a comparison of the obligations to investigate in asylum cases and in sick pay cases and a comparison of the obligations to review the taken decision in asylum cases and sick pay cases. After the comparison it is investigated if there is a relationship between the obligation to investigate and the obligation to review a matter.
The essay states that there is a weak relationship between the obligation to investigate and the obligation to review a matter. The relationship exists because both obligations depend on the complexion of the matter. If there for example is a protection-aspect that increases the obligation to investigate, the protection aspect also enforces the obligation to review a matter.
The essay also states that there is a need to make the relationship between the obligations stronger. The need can be stated because there are practical shortages in the investigations that the authorities make, and practical shortages in the reviews that he authorities make. The relationship should be stated in the law through a statement in the obligation to review a matter. If the obligation to investigate is not fulfilled the authority should have an obligation to review the matter. This statement should happen so that a more extensive obligation to investigate should also mean that the obligation to review a matter should also be more extensive. (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- När en myndighet ska fatta beslut måste myndigheterna först ha underlag för att kunna fatta ett korrekt beslut. Därför måste myndigheten handlägga ärendet på ett sätt som gör att den behövliga dokumentationen och bevisningen kommer in. Viss börda kan läggas på den sökande. Den sökandes bevisbörda uppfylls genom att den sökande kommer in med de dokument och annan bevisning som han eller hon har. I resterande del av handläggningen gäller officialprincipen, vilket innebär att myndigheten är den som ytterst ansvarar för att ett ärende ska vara tillräckligt utrett för att myndigheten ska kunna fatta ett beslut. Denna skyldighet att utreda är olika stor i olika sorters ärenden. När väl ett beslut har fattats finns det sätt att kontrollera och... (More)
- När en myndighet ska fatta beslut måste myndigheterna först ha underlag för att kunna fatta ett korrekt beslut. Därför måste myndigheten handlägga ärendet på ett sätt som gör att den behövliga dokumentationen och bevisningen kommer in. Viss börda kan läggas på den sökande. Den sökandes bevisbörda uppfylls genom att den sökande kommer in med de dokument och annan bevisning som han eller hon har. I resterande del av handläggningen gäller officialprincipen, vilket innebär att myndigheten är den som ytterst ansvarar för att ett ärende ska vara tillräckligt utrett för att myndigheten ska kunna fatta ett beslut. Denna skyldighet att utreda är olika stor i olika sorters ärenden. När väl ett beslut har fattats finns det sätt att kontrollera och ändra sådana beslut som har blivit fel. Detta kan ske genom överklagande från den sökande eller genom att myndigheten själv upptäcker dessa fel.
Denna uppsats behandlar sambandet mellan utredningsskyldigheten och omprövningsskyldigheten ex-officio. Sambandet undersöks genom en jämförelse av utredningsskyldigheterna i asylärenden och utredningsskyldigheten i sjukpenningsärenden och en jämförelse av omprövningsskyldigheten i asylärenden och omprövningsskyldigheten i sjukpenningärenden. Därefter undersöks huruvida det finns ett samband mellan omprövningsskyldigheten ex-officio och utredningsskyldigheten.
I uppsatsen konstateras att det finns ett svagt samband mellan utredningsskyldighet och omprövningsskyldighet ex-officio eftersom utredningsskyldigheten såväl som omprövningsskyldigheten bygger på ärendets karaktär. Om det exempelvis finns en skyddsaspekt som ökar utredningsskyldigheten i en typ av ärenden så finns motsvarande skyddsaspekt som påverkar omprövningsskyldigheten. Därför bygger såväl utredningsskyldigheten som omprövningsskyldigheten på ärendets beskaffenhet.
I uppsatsen konstateras också att det på grund av bristande ändringsfrekvens och bristande uppfyllande av utredningsskyldigheten finns ett behov av att tydligare koppla ihop utredningsskyldigheten med omprövningsskyldigheten ex-officio. Detta bör ske på ett sätt så att en bristande utredning ska vara en grund för en skyldighet att ompröva ett beslut ex-officio. Det torde ske på ett sätt så att ärenden där utredningsskyldigheten är stor, även omprövningsskyldigheten blir större (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/4451001
- author
- Timofejevs, Igors LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- Investigation and re-examination
- course
- JURM02 20141
- year
- 2014
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- forvaltningsrätt, omprövningsskyldighet, utredningsskyldighet, sjukpenning, asyl
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 4451001
- date added to LUP
- 2014-06-12 09:02:54
- date last changed
- 2014-06-12 09:02:54
@misc{4451001,
abstract = {{Before the authorities take a decision, the authorities must have such material, that they can make a decision. The authorities must therefore handle the matter in a way which makes that the authorities get the information and documentation needed to take a decision in the matter. Some strain can be put on the person that comes in with an application. The strain can consist of the documentation and evidence that the applicant has in the matter. The rest of the handling of the matter lies under the authorities through officialprincipen, which means that the authorities are responsible for the matter. The authorities must make sure that the matter is investigated as much as required. The size of this obligation is shifting depending on which matter the authorities are handling. When a decision is taken, there are ways of controling and changing the decisions that are wrong. It can happen through an appeal from the applicant or if the authority find the error themselves.
This essay treats the relationship between the obligation to investigate a matter and the obligation to ex-officio review a decision that is taken. The relationship is investigated through a comparison of the obligations to investigate in asylum cases and in sick pay cases and a comparison of the obligations to review the taken decision in asylum cases and sick pay cases. After the comparison it is investigated if there is a relationship between the obligation to investigate and the obligation to review a matter.
The essay states that there is a weak relationship between the obligation to investigate and the obligation to review a matter. The relationship exists because both obligations depend on the complexion of the matter. If there for example is a protection-aspect that increases the obligation to investigate, the protection aspect also enforces the obligation to review a matter.
The essay also states that there is a need to make the relationship between the obligations stronger. The need can be stated because there are practical shortages in the investigations that the authorities make, and practical shortages in the reviews that he authorities make. The relationship should be stated in the law through a statement in the obligation to review a matter. If the obligation to investigate is not fulfilled the authority should have an obligation to review the matter. This statement should happen so that a more extensive obligation to investigate should also mean that the obligation to review a matter should also be more extensive.}},
author = {{Timofejevs, Igors}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Utredning och omprövning}},
year = {{2014}},
}