Instansordningsprincipen – Innebörd och tillämplighet
(2015) JURM02 20151Department of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Sammanfattning
Instansordningsprincipen är en förvaltningsrättslig princip som huvudsakligen medför att parterna i ett förvaltningsmål är förhindrade att tillföra nytt processmaterial i högre instanser. Principen är, emellertid, inte uttryckligen lagstadgad i Förvaltningsprocesslagen (1971:291), FPL. Istället är det upp till förvaltningsdomstolarna att tolka de uttalande som finns i förarbetena till lagen för att avgöra instansordningsprincipens innebörd och tillämpning. Uppsatsen syftar därför till att undersöka instansordningsprincipens innebörd inom svensk förvaltningsprocessrätt samt utreda huruvida principens tillämplighet varierar mellan olika typer av förvaltningsrättsliga mål. Den praxis som har utvecklats på grund av avsaknad av... (More) - Sammanfattning
Instansordningsprincipen är en förvaltningsrättslig princip som huvudsakligen medför att parterna i ett förvaltningsmål är förhindrade att tillföra nytt processmaterial i högre instanser. Principen är, emellertid, inte uttryckligen lagstadgad i Förvaltningsprocesslagen (1971:291), FPL. Istället är det upp till förvaltningsdomstolarna att tolka de uttalande som finns i förarbetena till lagen för att avgöra instansordningsprincipens innebörd och tillämpning. Uppsatsen syftar därför till att undersöka instansordningsprincipens innebörd inom svensk förvaltningsprocessrätt samt utreda huruvida principens tillämplighet varierar mellan olika typer av förvaltningsrättsliga mål. Den praxis som har utvecklats på grund av avsaknad av reglering om principen härrör främst från bestämmelserna i 29- 30 §§ FPL, som berör möjligheterna till taleändring i förhållande till yrkandena respektive omständigheterna i målet.
Instansordningsprincipen innebär främst att parternas möjligheter till att utföra taleändringar begränsas. Vidare har instansordningsprincipen i doktrin tillskrivits ytterligare en funktion; att allt relevant processmaterial ska åberopas redan i första instans. Gällande yrkandena i förvaltningsmål kan det konstateras att instansordningsprincipen samspelar med tre olika principer som i olika situationer påverkar principens tillämplighet. Dessa principer åsyftar främst till att skydda den enskilde från dess motpart och i vissa fall se till att vissa formaliteter inom förvaltningsprocessen följs. Vidare anses 37 § FPL medföra att instansordningsprincipen tillämpas striktare i förvaltningsmål som överklagats till HFD. I relation till omständigheterna är tillåtligheten av nya omständigheter generellt sätt kopplat till vad som anses utgöra samma sak. Begreppet samma sak har i förvaltningsprocessrätten ansetts ha en nära koppling till att händelseförloppet i målet förblir intakt. Denna bedömning har dock frångåtts av förvaltningsdomstolarna i vissa måltyper. En sådan avvikelse utgörs av åberopsplikten som förvaltningsdomstolarna har utformat för den allmänna parten i mål som rör ingripande åtgärder mot enskild, såsom återkallelse av läkarlegitimation. Ytterligare avvikelser förekommer i praxis rörande vissa typer av mål, där den enskildes skyddsintresse får ge vika för den relevanta lagens skyddsintresse. Således konstaterar uppsatsen att instansordningsprincipens tillämplighet varierar i praxis beroende av det individuella ärendet karaktär.
Uppsatsens slutsats är att instansordningsprincipen har förlorat sin innebörd och tillämpning på grund av alla undantag som har utarbetats i praxis och doktrin. Instansordningsprincipen, som ursprungligen, skulle verka för rättssäkerhet har till följd av undantagen och beaktandet av andra intressen resulterat i att principens innebörd och tillämpning präglas av osäkerhet och oförutsägbarhet. (Less) - Abstract
- Summary
The principle of the court hierachy is a principle within administrative law whose intention is to prevent the parties to add new case material in the higher instances. The principle, however, is not explicitly stated in the Administrative Court Procedure Act (1971: 291), FPL. Instead, the administrative courts are given the task to interpret various statements contained in the legislative history of the FPL in order to determine the principle of the court hierachy’s implication and application. The thesis, therefore, aims to investigate the principle’s implication within Swedish administrative procedure and investigate whether or not the principle’s applicability differs between various types of administrative law cases. The... (More) - Summary
The principle of the court hierachy is a principle within administrative law whose intention is to prevent the parties to add new case material in the higher instances. The principle, however, is not explicitly stated in the Administrative Court Procedure Act (1971: 291), FPL. Instead, the administrative courts are given the task to interpret various statements contained in the legislative history of the FPL in order to determine the principle of the court hierachy’s implication and application. The thesis, therefore, aims to investigate the principle’s implication within Swedish administrative procedure and investigate whether or not the principle’s applicability differs between various types of administrative law cases. The established practice, which has developed due to the lack of regulation regarding the principle, primarily derived from the legal provisions in 29- 30 §§ FPL. The before mentioned provisions regulate the possibilities to alter the claims or the facts in a case.
The primary implication of the principle is that the parties' ability to adjust their claim are limited. Furthermore, the principle is thought of to convey an additional function: all relevant case material should be refered to in the first instance. Regarding the claims it can be concluded that the principle of the court hierachy interacts with three other principles which affect the applicability of the principle. The purpose of the other three principles is to protect the individual from its adversary party as well as uphold and maintain certain formalities within administrative procedure law. Moreover, the principle is regarded to have a stricter application in correlation to the provision in 37 § FPL, which regulates appeals to the Supreme Administrative Court. In relation to the circumstances in a case; the admissibility of the new circumstances are generally linked to what is considered to be the same. The notion of ”the same subject matter” is considered to be connected to the fact that the chain of events in a case remains intact. The assessment, however, has been waived by the administrative courts in certain types of cases. One such deviation is the duty for a public party to explicitly refer to circumstances, in cases involving severe restrictive measures against an individual. An exemple of such a case is a withdrawal of medical licensure. Additional deviations occur in practice concerning certain types of cases where the individual’s interest in the Rule of Law must give way to the interest the relevant law aims to protect. The applicability of the principle of the court hierachy, therefore, is the subject to the character of the individual case. The thesis concludes that the principle of the court hierachy has lost its implication and application due to all the exceptions which have been developed in established practice and doctrine. The principle’s initial intention was to promote and enhance legal certainty. Today, however, the exceptions and the consideration of other insterests have resulted in that the implication and application of the principle are hallmarked by uncertainty and unpredictability. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/5434865
- author
- Sjöbeck, Emma LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- The principle of the court hierachy – Implication and applicability
- course
- JURM02 20151
- year
- 2015
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- förvaltningsrätt, förvaltningsprocessrätt, instansordingsprincipen, taleändringar
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 5434865
- date added to LUP
- 2015-06-16 17:00:48
- date last changed
- 2015-06-16 17:00:48
@misc{5434865,
abstract = {{Summary
The principle of the court hierachy is a principle within administrative law whose intention is to prevent the parties to add new case material in the higher instances. The principle, however, is not explicitly stated in the Administrative Court Procedure Act (1971: 291), FPL. Instead, the administrative courts are given the task to interpret various statements contained in the legislative history of the FPL in order to determine the principle of the court hierachy’s implication and application. The thesis, therefore, aims to investigate the principle’s implication within Swedish administrative procedure and investigate whether or not the principle’s applicability differs between various types of administrative law cases. The established practice, which has developed due to the lack of regulation regarding the principle, primarily derived from the legal provisions in 29- 30 §§ FPL. The before mentioned provisions regulate the possibilities to alter the claims or the facts in a case.
The primary implication of the principle is that the parties' ability to adjust their claim are limited. Furthermore, the principle is thought of to convey an additional function: all relevant case material should be refered to in the first instance. Regarding the claims it can be concluded that the principle of the court hierachy interacts with three other principles which affect the applicability of the principle. The purpose of the other three principles is to protect the individual from its adversary party as well as uphold and maintain certain formalities within administrative procedure law. Moreover, the principle is regarded to have a stricter application in correlation to the provision in 37 § FPL, which regulates appeals to the Supreme Administrative Court. In relation to the circumstances in a case; the admissibility of the new circumstances are generally linked to what is considered to be the same. The notion of ”the same subject matter” is considered to be connected to the fact that the chain of events in a case remains intact. The assessment, however, has been waived by the administrative courts in certain types of cases. One such deviation is the duty for a public party to explicitly refer to circumstances, in cases involving severe restrictive measures against an individual. An exemple of such a case is a withdrawal of medical licensure. Additional deviations occur in practice concerning certain types of cases where the individual’s interest in the Rule of Law must give way to the interest the relevant law aims to protect. The applicability of the principle of the court hierachy, therefore, is the subject to the character of the individual case. The thesis concludes that the principle of the court hierachy has lost its implication and application due to all the exceptions which have been developed in established practice and doctrine. The principle’s initial intention was to promote and enhance legal certainty. Today, however, the exceptions and the consideration of other insterests have resulted in that the implication and application of the principle are hallmarked by uncertainty and unpredictability.}},
author = {{Sjöbeck, Emma}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Instansordningsprincipen – Innebörd och tillämplighet}},
year = {{2015}},
}