Laglotten - sanktionerad stöld eller legitim inskränkning i äganderätten? - En undersökning om laglottens förenlighet med egendomsskyddet i regeringsformen och EKMR
(2016) LAGF03 20162Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract
- In Sweden there are rules of law limiting the absolute testamentary freedom. One of these is forced heirship which is regulated by law. These rules have practically been unchanged since the 1850s. The part of the inheritance reserved for next-of-kin through forced heirship is composed of half of the estate. There are practically no exceptions to this rule, but the next-of-kin who wishes his inheritance through forced heirship must do so by demanding adjustment of the will. During the 1990s the ECHR was incorporated into Swedish law. In connection with this the Swedish constitution was updated and the rule covering property protection was made stronger to better coincide with the ECHR. The purpose of this essay is to investigate whether the... (More)
- In Sweden there are rules of law limiting the absolute testamentary freedom. One of these is forced heirship which is regulated by law. These rules have practically been unchanged since the 1850s. The part of the inheritance reserved for next-of-kin through forced heirship is composed of half of the estate. There are practically no exceptions to this rule, but the next-of-kin who wishes his inheritance through forced heirship must do so by demanding adjustment of the will. During the 1990s the ECHR was incorporated into Swedish law. In connection with this the Swedish constitution was updated and the rule covering property protection was made stronger to better coincide with the ECHR. The purpose of this essay is to investigate whether the rule about forced heirship is in conflict with the rule about property protection in the constitution and the ECHR, and how this contradiction should be resolved.
The property protection rule in the Swedish constitution was meant to be a specification of the rule in the ECHR. Despite this, the rules are not identical. Both rules comprise a protection from being deprived of one’s possessions, except in the “urgent public interest” respectively in the “public interest”. The essay examines whether the purposes motivating the rule about forced heirship can be deemed to fulfill such public interests. Tools used in the examination are proportionality assessment, and the margin of appreciation that gives the member countries freedom to interpret the convention.
It is uncertain if forced heirship conflicts with the property protection rules. It has not been tried in Swedish court, nor in the European Court of Human Rights. My assessment is that the system of forced heirship conflicts with the property protection rule in the Swedish constitution, as the motives do not live up to the strict exception to the rule. However, it does not conflict with the ECHR, due to the broader exception combined with the margin of appreciation, which gives the countries further autonomy to interpret the rule. (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- I Sverige finns det lagregler som begränsar den absoluta testationsfriheten. En av dessa kallas laglotten och regleras i ärvdabalkens sjunde kapitel. Dessa regler har i stort sett varit oförändrade sedan 1850-talet. Laglottssystemet innebär att hälften av allas egendom är reserverad dennes bröstarvingar, i princip utan undantag, om de så kräver det genom jämkning av testamente. På 1990-talet inkorporerades EKMR i svensk rätt. I samband med detta uppdaterades egendomsskyddet i regeringsformen för att bättre stämma överens med Sveriges åtaganden på grund av konventionen. Syftet med denna uppsats är att undersöka om laglottssystemet strider mot egendomsskyddet i regeringsformen och EKMR, samt hur denna potentiella normkonflikt bör lösas.
... (More) - I Sverige finns det lagregler som begränsar den absoluta testationsfriheten. En av dessa kallas laglotten och regleras i ärvdabalkens sjunde kapitel. Dessa regler har i stort sett varit oförändrade sedan 1850-talet. Laglottssystemet innebär att hälften av allas egendom är reserverad dennes bröstarvingar, i princip utan undantag, om de så kräver det genom jämkning av testamente. På 1990-talet inkorporerades EKMR i svensk rätt. I samband med detta uppdaterades egendomsskyddet i regeringsformen för att bättre stämma överens med Sveriges åtaganden på grund av konventionen. Syftet med denna uppsats är att undersöka om laglottssystemet strider mot egendomsskyddet i regeringsformen och EKMR, samt hur denna potentiella normkonflikt bör lösas.
Egendomsskyddet i regeringsformen avsågs att vara en precisering av rättsregeln i EKMR. Trots det är reglerna inte identiska. Båda reglerna innebär ett skydd mot att ens egendom blir tagen i anspråk, undantaget när det görs för ett ”angeläget allmänt intresse” respektive ”allmänt intresse”. I uppsatsen undersöker jag om motiven till laglotten innebär sådant allmänt intressen som åsyftas i regeringsformen och EKMR. Vid analysen iakttas en proportionalitetsbedömning, samt den ”margin of appreciation” som ger medlemsländerna mer eller mindre frihet att tolka konventionen.
Huruvida laglotten strider mot egendomsskyddet är inte klart. Det har varken prövats i svensk domstol eller Europadomstolen. Min bedömning är att laglotten strider mot regeringsformen, då de syften som motiverar laglotten inte lever upp till dess strikta undantag. Laglotten strider dock inte mot EKMR, då undantaget till konventionens egendomsskydd är bredare, samt medlemsländerna vid tolkningen av egendomsskyddet har fått en betydande tolkningsfrihet. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8896556
- author
- Melin, Magnus LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20162
- year
- 2016
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Familjerätt
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 8896556
- date added to LUP
- 2017-02-13 08:23:58
- date last changed
- 2017-02-13 08:23:58
@misc{8896556,
abstract = {{In Sweden there are rules of law limiting the absolute testamentary freedom. One of these is forced heirship which is regulated by law. These rules have practically been unchanged since the 1850s. The part of the inheritance reserved for next-of-kin through forced heirship is composed of half of the estate. There are practically no exceptions to this rule, but the next-of-kin who wishes his inheritance through forced heirship must do so by demanding adjustment of the will. During the 1990s the ECHR was incorporated into Swedish law. In connection with this the Swedish constitution was updated and the rule covering property protection was made stronger to better coincide with the ECHR. The purpose of this essay is to investigate whether the rule about forced heirship is in conflict with the rule about property protection in the constitution and the ECHR, and how this contradiction should be resolved.
The property protection rule in the Swedish constitution was meant to be a specification of the rule in the ECHR. Despite this, the rules are not identical. Both rules comprise a protection from being deprived of one’s possessions, except in the “urgent public interest” respectively in the “public interest”. The essay examines whether the purposes motivating the rule about forced heirship can be deemed to fulfill such public interests. Tools used in the examination are proportionality assessment, and the margin of appreciation that gives the member countries freedom to interpret the convention.
It is uncertain if forced heirship conflicts with the property protection rules. It has not been tried in Swedish court, nor in the European Court of Human Rights. My assessment is that the system of forced heirship conflicts with the property protection rule in the Swedish constitution, as the motives do not live up to the strict exception to the rule. However, it does not conflict with the ECHR, due to the broader exception combined with the margin of appreciation, which gives the countries further autonomy to interpret the rule.}},
author = {{Melin, Magnus}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Laglotten - sanktionerad stöld eller legitim inskränkning i äganderätten? - En undersökning om laglottens förenlighet med egendomsskyddet i regeringsformen och EKMR}},
year = {{2016}},
}