Advanced

Vem betalar när mina rättigheter kränks? - En kritisk granskning av Högsta domstolens hantering av enskildas skadeståndsansvar vid tillämpning av Europakonventionen

Wendleby, Louise LU (2017) LAGF03 20171
Faculty of Law
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Syftet med denna uppsats är att utreda och analysera om enskilda kan åläggas ett utomobligatoriskt skadeståndsansvar enligt Europakonventionen. I uppsatsen behandlas frågan om enskilda, enligt gällande svensk rätt, kan grunda ett skadeståndsanspråk gentemot andra enskilda direkt på Europakonventionen. Vidare görs en kritisk granskning av det svenska rättsläget utifrån dels ett europarättsligt perspektiv, dels ett förutsebarhetsperspektiv.

I uppsatsen diskuteras relevanta bestämmelser i Europakonventionen, praxis från Europadomstolen och den svenska rättsutvecklingen. Utredningen visar att Europakonventionen ålägger konventionsstaterna både negativa och positiva förpliktelser. Konventionsstaterna är i många fall skyldiga att aktivt... (More)
Syftet med denna uppsats är att utreda och analysera om enskilda kan åläggas ett utomobligatoriskt skadeståndsansvar enligt Europakonventionen. I uppsatsen behandlas frågan om enskilda, enligt gällande svensk rätt, kan grunda ett skadeståndsanspråk gentemot andra enskilda direkt på Europakonventionen. Vidare görs en kritisk granskning av det svenska rättsläget utifrån dels ett europarättsligt perspektiv, dels ett förutsebarhetsperspektiv.

I uppsatsen diskuteras relevanta bestämmelser i Europakonventionen, praxis från Europadomstolen och den svenska rättsutvecklingen. Utredningen visar att Europakonventionen ålägger konventionsstaterna både negativa och positiva förpliktelser. Konventionsstaterna är i många fall skyldiga att aktivt agera för att skydda enskilda från att utsättas för rättighetskränkningar av andra privata rättssubjekt. Konventionen har därför viss horisontell verkan, dvs. verkan mellan enskilda. Högsta domstolen (HD) har dock i två avgöranden, NJA 2007 s. 747 och NJA 2015 s. 899, uttalat att Europakonventionen inte ska ges direkt horisontell verkan på skadeståndsrättens område. Enligt HD kan enskilda alltså inte bli skadeståndsskyldiga med direkt tillämpning av Europakonventionen. Istället ska svensk skadeståndsrätt, i den utsträckning det är möjligt, tolkas fördragskonformt.

En analys av HD:s uttalanden visar att de kan kritiseras av flera anledningar. Det kan till att börja med ifrågasättas om svensk rätt, som den uttrycks genom HD:s praxis, är förenlig med Europakonventionens grundläggande principer, såsom subsidiaritetsprincipen. Dessutom finns en risk att Sverige, genom att inte låta enskilda som utsatts för rättighetskränkningar grunda en skadeståndstalan direkt på Europakonventionen, gör sig skyldig till en överträdelse av artikel 13 EKMR och rätten till ett effektivt rättsmedel. Vidare kritiseras den avgörande betydelse som HD tillmätt det rättsstatliga kravet på förutsebarhet som ett argument mot att ålägga enskilda ett skadeståndsansvar direkt på grundval av Europakonventionen. Det strikta förutsebarhetskrav som HD tillämpat i rättsfallen går bland annat emot domstolens tidigare praxisuttalanden på skadeståndsrättens område.

Sammantaget är min slutsats att HD, istället för att helt avvisa möjligheten för enskilda att grunda ett skadeståndsanspråk gentemot andra enskilda direkt på Europakonventionen, borde tillåta att en bedömning görs från fall till fall. (Less)
Abstract
The purpose of this essay is to investigate and analyse if individuals can become liable to pay damages under the European Convention on Human Rights. The essay deals with the question of whether private persons, according to the Swedish law, can make a claim for damages against other individuals by directly applying the European Convention. Furthermore, the Swedish legal position is critically examined from a European legal perspective on the one hand and a perspective on predictability on the other.

In the essay, relevant articles in the European Convention, case law from the European Court of Human Rights and the Swedish development of the law are discussed. The investigation shows that the Convention imposes both negative and... (More)
The purpose of this essay is to investigate and analyse if individuals can become liable to pay damages under the European Convention on Human Rights. The essay deals with the question of whether private persons, according to the Swedish law, can make a claim for damages against other individuals by directly applying the European Convention. Furthermore, the Swedish legal position is critically examined from a European legal perspective on the one hand and a perspective on predictability on the other.

In the essay, relevant articles in the European Convention, case law from the European Court of Human Rights and the Swedish development of the law are discussed. The investigation shows that the Convention imposes both negative and positive obligations on the States parties. In many cases, the States parties have a duty to actively act in order to protect private persons from having their Convention rights violated by other individuals. Consequently, the Convention can be considered to have some horizontal effect, i.e. effect in relationships between private persons. However, in two judgments, NJA 2007 p. 747 and NJA 2015 p. 899, the Swedish Supreme Court has stated that the European Convention should not be given direct horizontal effect in the field of tort law. According to the Supreme Court, private persons thus cannot become liable for damages with direct application of the European Convention. Swedish tort law should instead, to the extent that it is possible, be interpreted in accordance with the Convention.

By analysing the Supreme Courts’ statements, it is shown that they can be criticised for a number of reasons. First of all, it can be questioned whether the Swedish law, as it is expressed in the Supreme Court’s case law, is consistent with the fundamental principles of the European Convention, such as the subsidiarity principle. Furthermore, by not allowing individuals to make a claim for damages by directly applying the European Convention, there is a risk that Sweden is violating article 13 ECHR and the right to an effective remedy. It could also be argued that the Supreme Court has put too much emphasis on the rule of law demand for predictability in its discussion on private persons’ liability to pay damages with direct application of the European Convention. The essay finds, among other things, that the predictability criterion applied by the Court in the two cases goes against statements that the Court has made in its earlier case law.

My final conclusion is that the Supreme Court, instead of completely rejecting the possibility for private persons to make a claim for damages by directly applying the European Convention, should make an assessment in each case. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Wendleby, Louise LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20171
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
positiva skyldigheter, skadeståndsrätt, EKMR, utomobligatoriskt skadeståndsansvar, horisontell verkan, subsidiaritetsprincipen, effektivt rättsmedel, fördragskonform tolkning, förutsebarhetskravet, NJA 2007 s. 747, NJA 2015 s. 899
language
Swedish
id
8907785
date added to LUP
2017-06-29 10:02:05
date last changed
2017-06-29 10:02:05
@misc{8907785,
  abstract     = {The purpose of this essay is to investigate and analyse if individuals can become liable to pay damages under the European Convention on Human Rights. The essay deals with the question of whether private persons, according to the Swedish law, can make a claim for damages against other individuals by directly applying the European Convention. Furthermore, the Swedish legal position is critically examined from a European legal perspective on the one hand and a perspective on predictability on the other. 

In the essay, relevant articles in the European Convention, case law from the European Court of Human Rights and the Swedish development of the law are discussed. The investigation shows that the Convention imposes both negative and positive obligations on the States parties. In many cases, the States parties have a duty to actively act in order to protect private persons from having their Convention rights violated by other individuals. Consequently, the Convention can be considered to have some horizontal effect, i.e. effect in relationships between private persons. However, in two judgments, NJA 2007 p. 747 and NJA 2015 p. 899, the Swedish Supreme Court has stated that the European Convention should not be given direct horizontal effect in the field of tort law. According to the Supreme Court, private persons thus cannot become liable for damages with direct application of the European Convention. Swedish tort law should instead, to the extent that it is possible, be interpreted in accordance with the Convention. 

By analysing the Supreme Courts’ statements, it is shown that they can be criticised for a number of reasons. First of all, it can be questioned whether the Swedish law, as it is expressed in the Supreme Court’s case law, is consistent with the fundamental principles of the European Convention, such as the subsidiarity principle. Furthermore, by not allowing individuals to make a claim for damages by directly applying the European Convention, there is a risk that Sweden is violating article 13 ECHR and the right to an effective remedy. It could also be argued that the Supreme Court has put too much emphasis on the rule of law demand for predictability in its discussion on private persons’ liability to pay damages with direct application of the European Convention. The essay finds, among other things, that the predictability criterion applied by the Court in the two cases goes against statements that the Court has made in its earlier case law. 

My final conclusion is that the Supreme Court, instead of completely rejecting the possibility for private persons to make a claim for damages by directly applying the European Convention, should make an assessment in each case.},
  author       = {Wendleby, Louise},
  keyword      = {positiva skyldigheter,skadeståndsrätt,EKMR,utomobligatoriskt skadeståndsansvar,horisontell verkan,subsidiaritetsprincipen,effektivt rättsmedel,fördragskonform tolkning,förutsebarhetskravet,NJA 2007 s. 747,NJA 2015 s. 899},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Vem betalar när mina rättigheter kränks? - En kritisk granskning av Högsta domstolens hantering av enskildas skadeståndsansvar vid tillämpning av Europakonventionen},
  year         = {2017},
}