Om motivering av allmän förvaltningsdomstols avgöranden i mål om psykiatrisk tvångsvård: med särskilt fokus på konflikten mellan rättssäkerhet, öppenhet och integritetshänsyn
(2015) LAGM01 20152Department of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Det är en allmän rättsgrundsats att såväl förvaltningsmyndigheter som domstolar ska motivera de beslut eller avgöranden som meddelas. Denna skyldighet har vid ett flertal tillfällen konstaterats vara en grundpelare för att upprätthålla den enskildes rättssäkerhet i förvaltningsprocessen. Trots att ämnet under en längre tid har diskuterats generellt i såväl lagförarbeten som doktrin och praxis från Justitieombudsmannen, så förefaller det ofta ändå ligga betydande svårigheter i att uppfylla motiveringsskyldigheten. Eftersom att en dom blir offentlig, kan en särskild problematik uppstå i allmän förvaltningsdomstol i mål där sekretessreglerade uppgifter förekommer. Justitieombudsmannen har nyligen uppmärksammat frågan i samband med att... (More)
- Det är en allmän rättsgrundsats att såväl förvaltningsmyndigheter som domstolar ska motivera de beslut eller avgöranden som meddelas. Denna skyldighet har vid ett flertal tillfällen konstaterats vara en grundpelare för att upprätthålla den enskildes rättssäkerhet i förvaltningsprocessen. Trots att ämnet under en längre tid har diskuterats generellt i såväl lagförarbeten som doktrin och praxis från Justitieombudsmannen, så förefaller det ofta ändå ligga betydande svårigheter i att uppfylla motiveringsskyldigheten. Eftersom att en dom blir offentlig, kan en särskild problematik uppstå i allmän förvaltningsdomstol i mål där sekretessreglerade uppgifter förekommer. Justitieombudsmannen har nyligen uppmärksammat frågan i samband med att bristande motiveringar konstaterats i domar gällande psykiatrisk tvångsvård. När dessa ärenden i en alldeles särskilt hög grad präglas av behovet av ett rättssäkert förfarande liksom omfattande sekretessregleringar, hur ska motiveringsskyldigheten fullgöras utan att på ett otillbörligt sätt kränka den enskildes integritet genom att allmänt tillgängliggöra sådana uppgifter som kan antas vara mycket känsliga?
Detta arbete har, genom en undersökning av argumenten bakom rådande regleringar, försökt att precisera vilka krav som bör anses vara ställda på motivering i psykiatrimålen. Detta mot bakgrund av vilka verktyg som finns för att lösa konflikten med en stark hänsyn till den enskildes integritet. Till exempel har domstolen valet att i någon mån utsträcka sekretessen till att omfatta även delar av en dom, men bör detta ske på bekostnad av öppenheten? Syftet har varit att bana väg för en mer enhetlig rättstillämpning och en ökad rättssäkerhet för den enskilda parten.
Utredningen har utmynnat i slutsatsen att den psykiatriska tvångsvårdsprocessens stora krav på rättssäkerhet och insyn medför att motivering måste genomföras synnerligen utförligt i sådana mål. Detta innebär, att även om domskälen bör skrivas med omsorg om den enskildes integritet, så måste denna hänsyn väja i den utsträckning som krävs av motiveringen. Det har också befunnits kontraproduktivt att domstolen skyddar den enskildes integritet genom att förordna om fortsatt sekretess för delar av domskälen. Enligt gällande rätt förefaller det inte heller vara möjligt att sekretessbelägga den enskildes identitet men eventuellt skulle integritetshänsynen till viss del kunna tillgodoses genom att endast ange parten med personnummer. Det är angeläget att fortsätta diskutera godtagbara och ändamålsenliga strategier för att skydda den enskildes integritet i psykiatrimålen samtidigt som rättssäkerhet och insyn bevaras. (Less) - Abstract
- It is a principle of Swedish law that public administrative authorities and courts give a reasoning for their decisions or judgements. This obligation has on several occasions been found to be a part of the very foundation of the rule of law in the administrative judicial procedure. Although the matter has been subject to general discussion for a long time, in both legislative history, jurisprudence and in the case-law of the Parliamentary Ombudsmen, it seems that fulfilling the obligation of stating the grounds for decisions and judgements is often associated with difficulty. Since a judgement will be publicly disclosed, a particular problem can arise in the administrative courts in cases where confidential information exists. The... (More)
- It is a principle of Swedish law that public administrative authorities and courts give a reasoning for their decisions or judgements. This obligation has on several occasions been found to be a part of the very foundation of the rule of law in the administrative judicial procedure. Although the matter has been subject to general discussion for a long time, in both legislative history, jurisprudence and in the case-law of the Parliamentary Ombudsmen, it seems that fulfilling the obligation of stating the grounds for decisions and judgements is often associated with difficulty. Since a judgement will be publicly disclosed, a particular problem can arise in the administrative courts in cases where confidential information exists. The Parliamentary Ombudsmen have recently drawn attention to the issue when observing unsatisfactory court opinions in cases regarding compulsory psychiatric care. When proceedings governed by the rule of law is particularly important in these types of cases, in what way should the obligation to state the grounds for the judgement be fulfilled without violating the individual’s integrity by making public what is presumably very sensitive information?
This essay has, by an examination of the arguments behind existing legislation, tried to define what should be demanded from court opinions in cases regarding compulsory psychiatric care. This against a background of what tools are available for solving the conflict with a strong regard for the individual’s integrity. For example, to some extent the court has the choice to extend confidentiality to include also the judgement, but should this be at the expense of transparency? The aim has been to enable a more uniform application of law and an enhanced legal position for the individual party.
The examination has concluded that the extensive call for rule of law and transparency in the compulsory psychiatric care judicial process require that the court reasoning is communicated very thoroughly. This means that, even if the court opinion should be written with care for the individual’s integrity, this regard needs to fold to the extent that stating the grounds for the judgement demands. It has also been found counter-productive for the court to protect the individual’s integrity by ordering continued confidentiality for parts of the court opinion. It does also not seem legally possible to order confidentiality for the individual’s identity, but the regard for integrity might to some extent be satisfied by identification by personal identity number alone. It is a pressing matter to continue discussing acceptable and effective ways to protect the individual’s integrity in cases regarding compulsory psychiatric care whilst preserving the rule of law and transparency. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8511933
- author
- Simmons Rasmusson, Carin
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- On administrative courts giving a reasoning for judgements in cases concerning compulsory psychiatric care: focusing particularly on the conflict between the rule of law, transparency and regard for personal integrity
- course
- LAGM01 20152
- year
- 2015
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- Administrative Law, Administrative Courts, Administrative judicial procedure, Compulsory psychiatric care
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 8511933
- date added to LUP
- 2016-02-16 16:32:20
- date last changed
- 2016-02-17 08:37:03
@misc{8511933,
abstract = {{It is a principle of Swedish law that public administrative authorities and courts give a reasoning for their decisions or judgements. This obligation has on several occasions been found to be a part of the very foundation of the rule of law in the administrative judicial procedure. Although the matter has been subject to general discussion for a long time, in both legislative history, jurisprudence and in the case-law of the Parliamentary Ombudsmen, it seems that fulfilling the obligation of stating the grounds for decisions and judgements is often associated with difficulty. Since a judgement will be publicly disclosed, a particular problem can arise in the administrative courts in cases where confidential information exists. The Parliamentary Ombudsmen have recently drawn attention to the issue when observing unsatisfactory court opinions in cases regarding compulsory psychiatric care. When proceedings governed by the rule of law is particularly important in these types of cases, in what way should the obligation to state the grounds for the judgement be fulfilled without violating the individual’s integrity by making public what is presumably very sensitive information?
This essay has, by an examination of the arguments behind existing legislation, tried to define what should be demanded from court opinions in cases regarding compulsory psychiatric care. This against a background of what tools are available for solving the conflict with a strong regard for the individual’s integrity. For example, to some extent the court has the choice to extend confidentiality to include also the judgement, but should this be at the expense of transparency? The aim has been to enable a more uniform application of law and an enhanced legal position for the individual party.
The examination has concluded that the extensive call for rule of law and transparency in the compulsory psychiatric care judicial process require that the court reasoning is communicated very thoroughly. This means that, even if the court opinion should be written with care for the individual’s integrity, this regard needs to fold to the extent that stating the grounds for the judgement demands. It has also been found counter-productive for the court to protect the individual’s integrity by ordering continued confidentiality for parts of the court opinion. It does also not seem legally possible to order confidentiality for the individual’s identity, but the regard for integrity might to some extent be satisfied by identification by personal identity number alone. It is a pressing matter to continue discussing acceptable and effective ways to protect the individual’s integrity in cases regarding compulsory psychiatric care whilst preserving the rule of law and transparency.}},
author = {{Simmons Rasmusson, Carin}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Om motivering av allmän förvaltningsdomstols avgöranden i mål om psykiatrisk tvångsvård: med särskilt fokus på konflikten mellan rättssäkerhet, öppenhet och integritetshänsyn}},
year = {{2015}},
}