"Vad händer om min sambo dör?" - En studie av sambors rättsliga efterlevandeskydd i Sverige och Norge med utgångspunkt i teorin om normativa grundmönster
(2016) JURM02 20162Department of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Under de senaste årtiondena har samboförhållanden i både Sverige och Norge blivit en allt mer vanlig och allt mer socialt accepterad samlevnadsform. Trots relativt likartade samhällsförhållanden har dock lagstiftaren i respektive land utformat sambors rättsliga efterlevandeskydd på olika sätt. Den här uppsatsens syfte är att, ur ett rättsutvecklingsperspektiv, studera och jämföra efterlevande-skyddet i Sverige och Norge. Syftet är också att, i respektive lands utformning av detta skydd, belysa intressekollisionen mellan de normativa grundmönstren ”gemenskap” och ”individualitet/ekonomisk självständighet”.
Genom att undersöka lagstiftning, förarbeten, praxis och doktrin har det blivit klart att svensk och norsk rättsutveckling liknar... (More) - Under de senaste årtiondena har samboförhållanden i både Sverige och Norge blivit en allt mer vanlig och allt mer socialt accepterad samlevnadsform. Trots relativt likartade samhällsförhållanden har dock lagstiftaren i respektive land utformat sambors rättsliga efterlevandeskydd på olika sätt. Den här uppsatsens syfte är att, ur ett rättsutvecklingsperspektiv, studera och jämföra efterlevande-skyddet i Sverige och Norge. Syftet är också att, i respektive lands utformning av detta skydd, belysa intressekollisionen mellan de normativa grundmönstren ”gemenskap” och ”individualitet/ekonomisk självständighet”.
Genom att undersöka lagstiftning, förarbeten, praxis och doktrin har det blivit klart att svensk och norsk rättsutveckling liknar varandra. Samtidigt föreligger, såväl i rättsutveckling som i gällande rätt, stora skillnader. I Sverige för-verkligades snabbt en första lag år 1973 med sambors gemensamma bostad i centrum. I norsk rätt infördes inte regler rörande sambor förrän år 1991. Likväl har länderna haft gemensamt att lagstiftarna har identifierat ett behov av skyddsregler för den svagare sambon vid förhållandets upplösning. På samma sätt har respektive lands rättsutveckling pendlat mellan de normativa grundmönstren gemenskap och individualitet.
Idag har sambor i Norge, men inte i Sverige, arvsrätt. En efterlevande sambo i Sverige har istället rätt att begära bodelning av gemensam bostad och bohag. Motsvarande regler saknas i Norge. Det finns inte heller någon rätt, likvärdig den i Sverige, att som sin andel få ut ett visst minimivärde. Däremot kan, i båda länderna, den efterlevande i vissa fall överta parternas gemensamma bostad. I Norge finns dessutom en möjlighet att sitta kvar i oskiftat bo.
Övergripande har konstaterats att både svensk och norsk reglering grundar sig på individualism. Samtidigt gör sig gemenskapsmönstret påmint på bekostnad av den individuella äganderätten. Slutsatsen har därför dragits att det, å ena sidan, föreligger en konflikt mellan de båda mönstren i förhållande till olika lagregler samt att konflikten mellan mönstren, å andra sidan, kan urskiljas i en och samma regel. (Less) - Abstract
- During the past few decades, unmarried cohabitation has become an in-creasingly common and increasingly socially acceptable form of cohabitation in both Sweden and Norway. While social conditions are similar in both countries, Norwegian and Swedish legislators have introduced differently the legal rights of cohabitation when death occurs in the relationship. The intent of this investigation is to examine and compare the survivor’s legal protection within the context of legislative developments in Sweden and Norway. Herein, emphasis will be placed on illuminating the conflict between the basic normative patterns of ‘community’ and ‘individuality/financial independence’ that exist in each country’s regulation.
Legislative decisions,... (More) - During the past few decades, unmarried cohabitation has become an in-creasingly common and increasingly socially acceptable form of cohabitation in both Sweden and Norway. While social conditions are similar in both countries, Norwegian and Swedish legislators have introduced differently the legal rights of cohabitation when death occurs in the relationship. The intent of this investigation is to examine and compare the survivor’s legal protection within the context of legislative developments in Sweden and Norway. Herein, emphasis will be placed on illuminating the conflict between the basic normative patterns of ‘community’ and ‘individuality/financial independence’ that exist in each country’s regulation.
Legislative decisions, practice and doctrine, however, demonstrates that the development of law in both countries is actually quite similar. On the other hand, fundamental differences exist both in legislative development and in what has become law. In Sweden, the first law regarding a right to take over the joint dwelling was adopted in 1973. Similar legislation was not adopted in Norway until 1991. Yet, in both countries lawmakers saw a need to ensure protection for the surviving party when the relationship had ceased by way of death. Nonetheless, legislative developments in each country have vacillated with regard to the basic normative patterns of community versus individuality.
Cohabiting couples in Norway, unlike those in Sweden, may be entitled to inherit according to current law. Instead, the Swedish Cohabitation Act recognizes the right of a surviving cohabitant to request estate division of the joint dwelling and household goods. Norwegian law has no corresponding rules. Nor is there a right equivalent the one in Sweden, which provides the surviving party a certain minimum of protection. Yet, in both countries the surviving cohabitant sometimes enjoys the right to assume what has been the joint dwelling. Further in Norway there is a special provision regarding the continued possession of an estate whose physical attributes remain intact.
In summation, it can be said that while contemporary Swedish and Norwegian laws are built on the spirit of individuality, the pattern of community can nonetheless blur the concept of individual ownership. Hence, it can be submitted that a conflict between the patterns can arise when different rules of cohabitation are subjected to interpretation. Conversely, the conflict between patterns can appear in the one and same rule. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8897775
- author
- Lindqvist, Karin LU
- supervisor
-
- Eva Ryrstedt LU
- organization
- alternative title
- "What happens if my cohabitant dies?" - An investigation of the legal protection of surviving cohabitants in Sweden and Norway, with reference to the theory of normative patterns
- course
- JURM02 20162
- year
- 2016
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- familjerätt, komparativ rätt, sambo, efterlevandeskydd, arvsrätt, bodelning, Norge, normativa grundmönster
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 8897775
- date added to LUP
- 2017-01-21 13:35:48
- date last changed
- 2017-01-21 13:35:48
@misc{8897775,
abstract = {{During the past few decades, unmarried cohabitation has become an in-creasingly common and increasingly socially acceptable form of cohabitation in both Sweden and Norway. While social conditions are similar in both countries, Norwegian and Swedish legislators have introduced differently the legal rights of cohabitation when death occurs in the relationship. The intent of this investigation is to examine and compare the survivor’s legal protection within the context of legislative developments in Sweden and Norway. Herein, emphasis will be placed on illuminating the conflict between the basic normative patterns of ‘community’ and ‘individuality/financial independence’ that exist in each country’s regulation.
Legislative decisions, practice and doctrine, however, demonstrates that the development of law in both countries is actually quite similar. On the other hand, fundamental differences exist both in legislative development and in what has become law. In Sweden, the first law regarding a right to take over the joint dwelling was adopted in 1973. Similar legislation was not adopted in Norway until 1991. Yet, in both countries lawmakers saw a need to ensure protection for the surviving party when the relationship had ceased by way of death. Nonetheless, legislative developments in each country have vacillated with regard to the basic normative patterns of community versus individuality.
Cohabiting couples in Norway, unlike those in Sweden, may be entitled to inherit according to current law. Instead, the Swedish Cohabitation Act recognizes the right of a surviving cohabitant to request estate division of the joint dwelling and household goods. Norwegian law has no corresponding rules. Nor is there a right equivalent the one in Sweden, which provides the surviving party a certain minimum of protection. Yet, in both countries the surviving cohabitant sometimes enjoys the right to assume what has been the joint dwelling. Further in Norway there is a special provision regarding the continued possession of an estate whose physical attributes remain intact.
In summation, it can be said that while contemporary Swedish and Norwegian laws are built on the spirit of individuality, the pattern of community can nonetheless blur the concept of individual ownership. Hence, it can be submitted that a conflict between the patterns can arise when different rules of cohabitation are subjected to interpretation. Conversely, the conflict between patterns can appear in the one and same rule.}},
author = {{Lindqvist, Karin}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{"Vad händer om min sambo dör?" - En studie av sambors rättsliga efterlevandeskydd i Sverige och Norge med utgångspunkt i teorin om normativa grundmönster}},
year = {{2016}},
}