Advanced

Laglotten och dess förenlighet med egendomsskyddet

Sandberg, Emelie LU (2016) LAGF03 20161
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
I denna uppsats behandlas laglottens förenlighet med skyddsreglerna i regeringsfor-men och Europakonventionen. Syftet med uppsatsen är att belysa om laglotten utgör ett för stort ingripande i egendomsskyddet. För att belysa detta på ett rättsligt sätt används rättsdogmatisk metod. Doktrin och motioner studeras för att ge en bild av hur Europakonventionen fungerar samt hur olika advokater och politiker ställer sig till frågeställningen.

Systemet med laglott har sina rötter långt tillbaka i tiden. Trots stora förändringar i samhället är regleringen kring laglotten sig lik. Det primära syftet med laglotten är att skydda bröstarvingar från att bli arvlösa. Detta gör lagstiftaren genom att bröstar-vingarna alltid har rätt till hälften av... (More)
I denna uppsats behandlas laglottens förenlighet med skyddsreglerna i regeringsfor-men och Europakonventionen. Syftet med uppsatsen är att belysa om laglotten utgör ett för stort ingripande i egendomsskyddet. För att belysa detta på ett rättsligt sätt används rättsdogmatisk metod. Doktrin och motioner studeras för att ge en bild av hur Europakonventionen fungerar samt hur olika advokater och politiker ställer sig till frågeställningen.

Systemet med laglott har sina rötter långt tillbaka i tiden. Trots stora förändringar i samhället är regleringen kring laglotten sig lik. Det primära syftet med laglotten är att skydda bröstarvingar från att bli arvlösa. Detta gör lagstiftaren genom att bröstar-vingarna alltid har rätt till hälften av sin arvslott, oavsett föräldrarnas vilja.

Många anser att laglotten är ett främmande institut i förhållande till hur dagens samhälle ser ut. Vissa menar att det strider mot egendomsskyddet såsom det finns stadgat både i regeringsformen och i Europakonventionen. Trots lite olika ordalydel-ser avser de båda likartad reglering. Regleringen innehåller i båda fallen en möjlighet för myndigheter att göra inskränkningar i äganderätten, med hänsyn till angelägna allmänna intressen (regeringsformen) eller det allmännas intresse (Europakonvent-ionen). Genom Europakonventionen har medlemsländerna fått en viss margin of appreciation för att fastställa vad som omfattas av det allmännas intresse. Vad som faller under de respektive undantagen har inte prövats av Europadomstolen eller av HD, vilket gör tolkningen av dessa undantags omfattning oklar.

Omständigheten att medlemsländerna har ett visst skön att använda sig av vid tillämpning av Europakonventionen tillsammans med omständigheten att det inte prövats av Europadomstolen i något fall gör att det i dagens läge inte kan fastställas att laglotten skulle strida mot de stadgade skyddsreglerna. Problematiken kring frågeställningen ligger i att när en person berövas sitt egendomsskydd är den redan avliden och kan inte föra en talan inför Europadomstolen, klarhet i frågan är därför svår att få. Min uppfattning är att domstolen skulle ha svårt att komma fram till att inskränkningen i skyddsreglerna är legitim, då det är en väldigt ingripande åtgärd och då de grundläggande syftena för den svenska regleringen inte längre är aktuella. (Less)
Abstract
This essay examines the system of direct heirs’ statutory share of inheritance and its compatibility with the protection rules of the Swedish Constitution and the Europe-an Convention. The purpose of this essay is to illuminate if the direct heirs’ statutory portion is too much intervention in Protection of property. To achieve the purpose with the essay, a legal dogmatic method has been used. Doctrine and motions have been used as well to provide an apprehension of how the European Convention works and how different lawyers and politicians look at this issue.

The system of direct heirs’ statutory portion has its roots far back in time. Despite major changes in society the regulation with direct heirs’ statutory portion is the same.... (More)
This essay examines the system of direct heirs’ statutory share of inheritance and its compatibility with the protection rules of the Swedish Constitution and the Europe-an Convention. The purpose of this essay is to illuminate if the direct heirs’ statutory portion is too much intervention in Protection of property. To achieve the purpose with the essay, a legal dogmatic method has been used. Doctrine and motions have been used as well to provide an apprehension of how the European Convention works and how different lawyers and politicians look at this issue.

The system of direct heirs’ statutory portion has its roots far back in time. Despite major changes in society the regulation with direct heirs’ statutory portion is the same. The primary purpose with direct heirs’ statutory portion is to protect the direct heirs’ from being disinherited. This works because regardless of their parents’ wishes, direct heirs’ are always entitled to half of their inheritance.

There are many who believe that direct heirs’ statutory portion is a foreign institution in relation to what the society looks like today. Some argue that it is contrary to the protection of property as it is regulated both in the Constitution and in the European Convention. Despite the slightly different wording, they both cover similar regula-tions. The regulation contains in both cases an opportunity for the authorities to make restrictions in the protection of property, with regard to an important public interest (Constitution) or to the public interest (European Convention). The Conven-tion’s member states have been giving a certain margin of appreciation to determine what is covered by the public interest. What falls under the respective exceptions have not yet been examined by the European Court or the Supreme Court in Swe-den, which makes the interpretation of the extent of these exemptions unclear.

The fact that member states have a certain margin of appreciation to use in the application of the European Convention, together with the fact that the European Court has not examined it, makes it hard to determine if the direct heirs’ statutory portion would be contrary to the statutory protection rules in the European Conven-tion and in the Swedish Constitution. The issue is that when a person is deprived of his property protection in this case, the person is already dead and cannot bring an action before the European Court of Justice. Clarity on the issue is therefore difficult to obtain. My view is that the court would find it difficult to come to the conclusion that this is legitimate, since it is a very radical measure and the purpose is no longer relevant. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Sandberg, Emelie LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20161
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
Familjerätt Arv, laglott, egendomsskydd
language
Swedish
id
8874219
date added to LUP
2016-07-04 09:32:39
date last changed
2016-07-04 09:32:39
@misc{8874219,
  abstract     = {This essay examines the system of direct heirs’ statutory share of inheritance and its compatibility with the protection rules of the Swedish Constitution and the Europe-an Convention. The purpose of this essay is to illuminate if the direct heirs’ statutory portion is too much intervention in Protection of property. To achieve the purpose with the essay, a legal dogmatic method has been used. Doctrine and motions have been used as well to provide an apprehension of how the European Convention works and how different lawyers and politicians look at this issue. 

The system of direct heirs’ statutory portion has its roots far back in time. Despite major changes in society the regulation with direct heirs’ statutory portion is the same. The primary purpose with direct heirs’ statutory portion is to protect the direct heirs’ from being disinherited. This works because regardless of their parents’ wishes, direct heirs’ are always entitled to half of their inheritance. 

There are many who believe that direct heirs’ statutory portion is a foreign institution in relation to what the society looks like today. Some argue that it is contrary to the protection of property as it is regulated both in the Constitution and in the European Convention. Despite the slightly different wording, they both cover similar regula-tions. The regulation contains in both cases an opportunity for the authorities to make restrictions in the protection of property, with regard to an important public interest (Constitution) or to the public interest (European Convention). The Conven-tion’s member states have been giving a certain margin of appreciation to determine what is covered by the public interest. What falls under the respective exceptions have not yet been examined by the European Court or the Supreme Court in Swe-den, which makes the interpretation of the extent of these exemptions unclear. 

The fact that member states have a certain margin of appreciation to use in the application of the European Convention, together with the fact that the European Court has not examined it, makes it hard to determine if the direct heirs’ statutory portion would be contrary to the statutory protection rules in the European Conven-tion and in the Swedish Constitution. The issue is that when a person is deprived of his property protection in this case, the person is already dead and cannot bring an action before the European Court of Justice. Clarity on the issue is therefore difficult to obtain. My view is that the court would find it difficult to come to the conclusion that this is legitimate, since it is a very radical measure and the purpose is no longer relevant.},
  author       = {Sandberg, Emelie},
  keyword      = {Familjerätt Arv,laglott,egendomsskydd},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Laglotten och dess förenlighet med egendomsskyddet},
  year         = {2016},
}