Advanced

24 kap. 9 a § RB - Ett slag i luften eller en bestämmelse som förutspås förändra allt?

Carlsson, Sara LU (2016) JURM02 20161
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Europaparlamentets och rådets direktiv 2012/13/EU om rätten till information vid straffrättsliga förfaranden utgör en del i en färdplan inom EU att förstärka rättighetsskyddet för misstänkta personer i brottmålsförfaranden. Artikel 7.1 i direktivet införlivades med svensk rätt den 1 juni 2014 genom införandet av 24 kap. 9 a § rättegångsbalken. Enligt artikel 7.1 i direktivet ska den som frihetsberövas få tillgång till sådana handlingar som är väsentliga för att effektivt kunna angripa ett beslut om anhållande och häktning. Artikel 7.1 utgör en komplettering till rätten till frihet (artikel 5) och rätten till en rättvis rättegång (artikel 6) i Europakonventionen samt en kodifiering av Europadomstolens praxis på området. Av 24 kap. 9 a §... (More)
Europaparlamentets och rådets direktiv 2012/13/EU om rätten till information vid straffrättsliga förfaranden utgör en del i en färdplan inom EU att förstärka rättighetsskyddet för misstänkta personer i brottmålsförfaranden. Artikel 7.1 i direktivet införlivades med svensk rätt den 1 juni 2014 genom införandet av 24 kap. 9 a § rättegångsbalken. Enligt artikel 7.1 i direktivet ska den som frihetsberövas få tillgång till sådana handlingar som är väsentliga för att effektivt kunna angripa ett beslut om anhållande och häktning. Artikel 7.1 utgör en komplettering till rätten till frihet (artikel 5) och rätten till en rättvis rättegång (artikel 6) i Europakonventionen samt en kodifiering av Europadomstolens praxis på området. Av 24 kap. 9 a § rättegångsbalken framgår att den som frihetsberövas har rätt att ta del av de omständigheter som ligger till grund för beslutet om anhållande eller häktning.

Det är i reglerna om implementering av EU-direktiv och rättighetsskyddet i Europakonventionen som denna uppsats tar sin utgångspunkt. Uppsatsen syftar till att utreda huruvida 24 kap. 9 a § rättegångsbalken är förenlig med artikel 7.1 i direktivet och analysera om den tolkning av 24 kap. 9 a § rättegångsbalken som kommer till uttryck i förarbetena är förenlig med rättighetsskyddet i artikel 5 i Europakonventionen. Utifrån ett regelorienterat och ett intresseorienterat angreppssätt, vilket bär drag av en kritiskt inriktad rättsdogmatisk metod, är avsikten att analysera och diskutera i vilken utsträckning svensk rätt fullgör förpliktelsen att tillhandahålla lagstiftning som säkerställer unionsrättens och rättigheterna i Europakonventionens reella genomslag.

Den problematik som uppsatsen redogör för är att åklagaren vid häktningsförhandling har bevisbördan för att den misstänkte på sannolika skäl har gjort sig skyldig till brott samt att det föreligger risk för flykt-, recidiv- eller kollusionsfara. Så länge utredningsmaterialet inte läggs till grund för rättens beslut om häktning kan åklagaren undanhålla bevisningen från den misstänkte. Europadomstolen har i sin praxis dock betonat att det inte finns någon möjlighet att angripa lagligheten av beslut om frihetsberövande om försvaret nekas tillgång till utredningsmaterialet.

Slutsatsen som dras är att insynsrätten i 24 kap. 9 a § rättegångsbalken inte är ovillkorlig vilket innebär att rättighetsskyddet i artikel 7.1 underskrids. Eftersom rättigheterna i direktivet ska ges samma innehåll som rättighetsskyddet i Europakonventionen strider 24 kap. 9 a § rättegångsbalken följaktligen mot både unionsrätten och europarätten. För att lagligheten av frihetsberövandet ska kunna prövas i enlighet med artikel 7.1 i direktivet och artikel 5 i Europakonventionen fordras att den misstänkte ges faktisk tillgång till all bevisning som finns i de behöriga myndigheternas besittning. Den uppfattning som kommer till uttryck i uppsatsen är att det är bara genom att tillämpa 24 kap. 9 a § rättegångsbalken i ljuset av artikel 5 i Europakonventionen och i överensstämmelse med Europadomstolens praxis som insynsrätten kan få ett reellt genomslag i den nationella rättstillämpningen. Den avslutande reflektionen som görs är att insynsrätten kommer att resultera i rättssäkra prövningar av beslut om frihetsberövanden och att fler materiellt riktiga beslut fattas. På detta sätt kan insynsrätten leda till en minskning av slentrianmässiga omhäktningar och att frihetsberövanden inte sker i större utsträckning än vad som krävs för en effektiv brottsbekämpning. (Less)
Abstract
Directive 2012/13/EU on the right to information in criminal proceedings (the Directive) is part of a road map within EU to strengthen the protection of rights of suspects in criminal proceedings. Article 7.1 of the Directive was implemented in Swedish procedural legislation on June 1st 2014 through a new statutory provision in the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure, 24 kap. 9 a §. According to Article 7.1 Member States are obliged to ensure that arrested or detained persons are granted access to documents that are related to the specific case in the possession of the competent authorities, which are essential for challenging effectively the lawfulness of the arrest or detention. The statutory protection of insight complements the right to... (More)
Directive 2012/13/EU on the right to information in criminal proceedings (the Directive) is part of a road map within EU to strengthen the protection of rights of suspects in criminal proceedings. Article 7.1 of the Directive was implemented in Swedish procedural legislation on June 1st 2014 through a new statutory provision in the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure, 24 kap. 9 a §. According to Article 7.1 Member States are obliged to ensure that arrested or detained persons are granted access to documents that are related to the specific case in the possession of the competent authorities, which are essential for challenging effectively the lawfulness of the arrest or detention. The statutory protection of insight complements the right to freedom (Article 5) and the right to a fair trial (Article 6) in the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) and is a codification of European Court of Human Rights case law. The Swedish equivalent of Article 7.1, 24 kap. 9 a § RB, constitutes a right for persons who are arrested or detained to access evidence which underlies claims of deprivation of freedom.

The intention of this thesis is to highlight the regulatory framework for the implementation of EU directives and to emphasise on the protection of ECHR rights when public authorities execute its power by depriving people of their freedom. Further, the objective of the thesis is to examine if 24 kap. 9 a § RB is equivalent to the corresponding provision in the Directive. This thesis will furthermore analyse to what extent Swedish law fulfils its obligation to provide legislation which ensures accurate implementation of EU law and compliance with ECHR rights in the adjudication process, using the legal dogmatic method seen through an interest oriented and rule oriented perspective.

The evidentiary burden rests on the prosecutor at the detention hearing for proving the existence of reasonable grounds for the allegation, as well as for the risk of the suspect to continue his or her criminal activity, risk of tampering with evidence or risk of evasion. As long as any evidence from the investigation material is not used as ground for the Court's decision on detention, the prosecutor can withhold evidence from the suspect. The European Court of Human Rights has in its practices, however, stressed that there is no possibility for the accused to challenge the lawfulness of the arrest or detention if access to the investigation material is denied.

The conclusion that is drawn is that the right to insight as it is laid down the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure is not unconditional, which means that the protection of rights in Article 7.1 in the Directive is undermined. Since the provisions of the Directive should correspond to the rights as guaranteed by ECHR, the law as expressed in the Swedish preliminary legislative work will conflict with EU law and fall below the standards provided by the ECHR as interpreted in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. The accused must be given effective access to all the evidence available in the possession of the competent authorities in order for Swedish legislation to meet the requirements of the Directive and Article 5 ECHR. It is simply by interpreting and applying the Code of Judical Procedure in light of Article 5 ECHR and in accordance with European Court of Human Rights case law that the right to insight will have a real impact in the national law enforcement. The final reflection is that the right to insight will result in legally secure decisions at detention hearings. In this way, the right to insight lead to a reduction of perfunctory detentions and that deprivation of liberty does not occur to a greater extent than is necessary for the purpose of effective law enforcement. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Carlsson, Sara LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
The right to insight in Swedish law, European Union Law and ECHR law with focus on 24 kap. 9 a § in the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure
course
JURM02 20161
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
EU-rätt, europarätt, straffrätt, EU-law, straffprocessrätt, right to insight, insynsrätt, direktivet om rätten till information, the Directive on right to information
language
Swedish
id
8874074
date added to LUP
2016-06-10 14:17:21
date last changed
2016-06-10 14:17:21
@misc{8874074,
  abstract     = {Directive 2012/13/EU on the right to information in criminal proceedings (the Directive) is part of a road map within EU to strengthen the protection of rights of suspects in criminal proceedings. Article 7.1 of the Directive was implemented in Swedish procedural legislation on June 1st 2014 through a new statutory provision in the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure, 24 kap. 9 a §. According to Article 7.1 Member States are obliged to ensure that arrested or detained persons are granted access to documents that are related to the specific case in the possession of the competent authorities, which are essential for challenging effectively the lawfulness of the arrest or detention. The statutory protection of insight complements the right to freedom (Article 5) and the right to a fair trial (Article 6) in the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) and is a codification of European Court of Human Rights case law. The Swedish equivalent of Article 7.1, 24 kap. 9 a § RB, constitutes a right for persons who are arrested or detained to access evidence which underlies claims of deprivation of freedom.

The intention of this thesis is to highlight the regulatory framework for the implementation of EU directives and to emphasise on the protection of ECHR rights when public authorities execute its power by depriving people of their freedom. Further, the objective of the thesis is to examine if 24 kap. 9 a § RB is equivalent to the corresponding provision in the Directive. This thesis will furthermore analyse to what extent Swedish law fulfils its obligation to provide legislation which ensures accurate implementation of EU law and compliance with ECHR rights in the adjudication process, using the legal dogmatic method seen through an interest oriented and rule oriented perspective. 

The evidentiary burden rests on the prosecutor at the detention hearing for proving the existence of reasonable grounds for the allegation, as well as for the risk of the suspect to continue his or her criminal activity, risk of tampering with evidence or risk of evasion. As long as any evidence from the investigation material is not used as ground for the Court's decision on detention, the prosecutor can withhold evidence from the suspect. The European Court of Human Rights has in its practices, however, stressed that there is no possibility for the accused to challenge the lawfulness of the arrest or detention if access to the investigation material is denied.

The conclusion that is drawn is that the right to insight as it is laid down the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure is not unconditional, which means that the protection of rights in Article 7.1 in the Directive is undermined. Since the provisions of the Directive should correspond to the rights as guaranteed by ECHR, the law as expressed in the Swedish preliminary legislative work will conflict with EU law and fall below the standards provided by the ECHR as interpreted in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. The accused must be given effective access to all the evidence available in the possession of the competent authorities in order for Swedish legislation to meet the requirements of the Directive and Article 5 ECHR. It is simply by interpreting and applying the Code of Judical Procedure in light of Article 5 ECHR and in accordance with European Court of Human Rights case law that the right to insight will have a real impact in the national law enforcement. The final reflection is that the right to insight will result in legally secure decisions at detention hearings. In this way, the right to insight lead to a reduction of perfunctory detentions and that deprivation of liberty does not occur to a greater extent than is necessary for the purpose of effective law enforcement.},
  author       = {Carlsson, Sara},
  keyword      = {EU-rätt,europarätt,straffrätt,EU-law,straffprocessrätt,right to insight,insynsrätt,direktivet om rätten till information,the Directive on right to information},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {24 kap. 9 a § RB - Ett slag i luften eller en bestämmelse som förutspås förändra allt?},
  year         = {2016},
}