Advanced

Domaren känner rätten - på parternas bekostnad? - En undersökning av förhållandet mellan jura novit curia och kontradiktionsprincipen efter NJA 2016 s. 107

Härle, Amanda LU (2017) LAGF03 20171
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Jura novit curia utgör en av grundbultarna inom den svenska processrätten. Principen innebär att domaren ansvarar för rättstillämpningen och att utrymmet för parterna att påverka denna är mycket begränsat. Endast genom några få partsdispositioner kan parterna utöva inflytande över vilka rättsregler som domstolen applicerar i ett specifikt fall. Kontradiktionsprincipen i artikel 6.1 EKMR stadgar att ingen part får dömas ohörd. Hur dessa två principer förhåller sig till varandra är inte i sig en omdebatterad fråga. Det är däremot omdiskuterat huruvida kontradiktionsprincipen skapar en plikt för domstolen att underrätta parterna, om domslutet grundas på andra rättsregler än de som parterna berört under processen. Högsta domstolen har uttalat... (More)
Jura novit curia utgör en av grundbultarna inom den svenska processrätten. Principen innebär att domaren ansvarar för rättstillämpningen och att utrymmet för parterna att påverka denna är mycket begränsat. Endast genom några få partsdispositioner kan parterna utöva inflytande över vilka rättsregler som domstolen applicerar i ett specifikt fall. Kontradiktionsprincipen i artikel 6.1 EKMR stadgar att ingen part får dömas ohörd. Hur dessa två principer förhåller sig till varandra är inte i sig en omdebatterad fråga. Det är däremot omdiskuterat huruvida kontradiktionsprincipen skapar en plikt för domstolen att underrätta parterna, om domslutet grundas på andra rättsregler än de som parterna berört under processen. Högsta domstolen har uttalat att det är lämpligt att domstolen bereder parterna möjlighet att yttra sig, men att det inte finns något sådant krav. Frågan har inte prövats av Europadomstolen vad gäller tvistemål, vilket gör att rättsläget är oklart.

Sedan Högsta domstolen genom en rad rättsfall utvidgat tillämpningen av jura novit curia finns anledning att diskutera vad detta innebär för principens förhållande till kontradiktionsprincipen. Det viktigaste av dessa rättsfall – NJA 2016 s. 107 – gestaltar utvidgningen av jura novit curia. Vissa av de partsdispositioner, som tidigare utgjorde undantag till principen, är inte längre undantag till jura novit curia. Detta innebär i sin tur att parternas inflytande i processen minskar. Syftet med innevarande uppsats är att utreda vad denna utveckling haft för betydelse för förhållandet mellan jura novit curia och kontradiktionsprincipen.

När svaranden i NJA 2016 s. 107 ansökte om resning togs frågan om avgörandets förenlighet med EKMR upp. Domstolen konstaterade då att förfarandet i och för sig stred mot kontradiktionsprincipen. På grund av det lämplighetsövervägandeutrymme som tillkommer de konventionsslutande staterna menade domstolen dock att en principkollision inte föreligger. Vad som ryms inom detta lämplighetsutrymme är dock tveksamt och inget som går att besvara förrän Europadomstolen tagit ställning i frågan. Fram till dess borde enligt min mening utgångspunkten vara att utvidgningen av jura novit curia är oförenlig med kontradiktionsprincipen. Ett krav på materiell processledning vid rättsfrågor skulle kunna fylla samma funktion som domarens upplysningsplikt till följd av kontradiktionsprincipen. Om ett sådant krav funnits i svensk rätt hade det varit möjligt att tillgodose rätten till kontradiktion ”bakvägen”. På liknande sätt har man diskuterat i norsk rätt. Det som emellertid ställer till problem är att det varken i förhållande till kontradiktionsprincipen eller till materiell processledning finns något krav på att kommunicera parterna vid ändrad rättsanvändning. Till stöd för slutsatsen ligger de juridiska rättskällorna. Ansträngningar har gjort för att uppsatsen ska genomsyras av både ett rättsutvecklingsperspektiv och ett internationellt perspektiv. (Less)
Abstract
Iura novit curia is one of the fundamental principles in Swedish procedural code. The principle means that the judge is responsible for the application of law and that the possibility for the parties to influence the process is very limited. Only through a few procedural acts can parties influence which legal rules the court applies in a specific case. The principle of an adversarial procedure in article 6.1 ECHR states that the parties have the right not to be judged unheard. How these two principles relate to one another is not in itself a matter of debate. On the other hand, it is discussed whether the principle of an adversarial procedure creates a duty for the court to notify the parties if the courts decision is based on rules other... (More)
Iura novit curia is one of the fundamental principles in Swedish procedural code. The principle means that the judge is responsible for the application of law and that the possibility for the parties to influence the process is very limited. Only through a few procedural acts can parties influence which legal rules the court applies in a specific case. The principle of an adversarial procedure in article 6.1 ECHR states that the parties have the right not to be judged unheard. How these two principles relate to one another is not in itself a matter of debate. On the other hand, it is discussed whether the principle of an adversarial procedure creates a duty for the court to notify the parties if the courts decision is based on rules other than those the parties raised during the process. The Supreme Court has stated that it is appropriate that the court offers the parties to comment in such cases, but that there is no such requirement. The European Court of Human Rights has not yet expressed an opinion, therefore the question remain unanswered.

Since the Supreme Court has extended the application of iura novit curia by a number of cases, there is reason to discuss what this means for the conflict between the principles. The most important of these cases – NJA 2016 s. 107 – constitutes the extension of iura novit curia. Some of the procedural acts, which previously created an exception to the principle, are no longer an exception to iura novit curia. This means that the parties’ influence in the process will decrease. The purpose of this thesis is to analyse iura novit curia in relation to the principle of an adversarial procedure after the extension of the principle.

When the losing party in NJA 2016 s. 107 petitioned for a new trial the question of compatibility between the decision and ECHR was raised. The court stated that the development of iura novit curia actually is incompatible with the principle of an adversarial procedure. However, due to the room for suitability consideration possessed by the contracting states, the Court considers that a collision of principles nevertheless does not exist. The extent of the room for suitability consideration is uncertain. This question cannot be answered until the European Court of Human Rights has taken a stand on the issue. Until then, the premise should be that the extension of iura novit curia is incompatible with the principle of an adversarial procedure. A requirement for material direction of proceedings in issues of law could accomplish the same result as the judge's duty to communicate the parties in cases of surprising application of the law because of the principle of an adversarial procedure. If Swedish law would have such a requirement, it would have been possible to provide the right to a fair hearing, even in cases where the principle of an adversarial procedure in itself was not fulfilled. The problem is, however, that the court is not required to communicate the parties, neither in relation to the principle of an adversarial procedure or in the material direction of proceedings. This conclusion is supported by the judicial sources of law that I have studied. Efforts have been made for the thesis to be permeated with both a legal development perspective and an international perspective. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Härle, Amanda LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20171
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
processrätt, jura novit curia, kontradiktionsprincipen, EKMR
language
Swedish
id
8908175
date added to LUP
2017-06-29 13:01:47
date last changed
2017-06-29 13:01:47
@misc{8908175,
  abstract     = {Iura novit curia is one of the fundamental principles in Swedish procedural code. The principle means that the judge is responsible for the application of law and that the possibility for the parties to influence the process is very limited. Only through a few procedural acts can parties influence which legal rules the court applies in a specific case. The principle of an adversarial procedure in article 6.1 ECHR states that the parties have the right not to be judged unheard. How these two principles relate to one another is not in itself a matter of debate. On the other hand, it is discussed whether the principle of an adversarial procedure creates a duty for the court to notify the parties if the courts decision is based on rules other than those the parties raised during the process. The Supreme Court has stated that it is appropriate that the court offers the parties to comment in such cases, but that there is no such requirement. The European Court of Human Rights has not yet expressed an opinion, therefore the question remain unanswered. 

Since the Supreme Court has extended the application of iura novit curia by a number of cases, there is reason to discuss what this means for the conflict between the principles. The most important of these cases – NJA 2016 s. 107 – constitutes the extension of iura novit curia. Some of the procedural acts, which previously created an exception to the principle, are no longer an exception to iura novit curia. This means that the parties’ influence in the process will decrease. The purpose of this thesis is to analyse iura novit curia in relation to the principle of an adversarial procedure after the extension of the principle. 

When the losing party in NJA 2016 s. 107 petitioned for a new trial the question of compatibility between the decision and ECHR was raised. The court stated that the development of iura novit curia actually is incompatible with the principle of an adversarial procedure. However, due to the room for suitability consideration possessed by the contracting states, the Court considers that a collision of principles nevertheless does not exist. The extent of the room for suitability consideration is uncertain. This question cannot be answered until the European Court of Human Rights has taken a stand on the issue. Until then, the premise should be that the extension of iura novit curia is incompatible with the principle of an adversarial procedure. A requirement for material direction of proceedings in issues of law could accomplish the same result as the judge's duty to communicate the parties in cases of surprising application of the law because of the principle of an adversarial procedure. If Swedish law would have such a requirement, it would have been possible to provide the right to a fair hearing, even in cases where the principle of an adversarial procedure in itself was not fulfilled. The problem is, however, that the court is not required to communicate the parties, neither in relation to the principle of an adversarial procedure or in the material direction of proceedings. This conclusion is supported by the judicial sources of law that I have studied. Efforts have been made for the thesis to be permeated with both a legal development perspective and an international perspective.},
  author       = {Härle, Amanda},
  keyword      = {processrätt,jura novit curia,kontradiktionsprincipen,EKMR},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Domaren känner rätten - på parternas bekostnad? - En undersökning av förhållandet mellan jura novit curia och kontradiktionsprincipen efter NJA 2016 s. 107},
  year         = {2017},
}