Advanced

Vem skall göra jobbet? - Om utredningsskyldigheten i migrationsrätten

Thor, Katja LU (2017) JURM02 20172
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Denna uppsats behandlar utredningsskyldigheten i migrationsmål och syftar till att undersöka hur den påverkas av relationen mellan officialprincipen och den enskildes skyldighet att bistå utredningen efter bästa förmåga. Således redogör uppsatsen för utredningsskyldigheten för respektive instans i migrationsprocessen såväl som officialprincipen och den enskildes upplysningsplikt.
Officialprincipen kommer till uttryck i 8 § förvaltningsprocesslagen (1971:291) och ålägger förvaltningsdomstolar en skyldighet att tillse att ett mål blir så utrett som dess beskaffenhet kräver. I och med införandet av en¬ ny förvaltningslag (2017:900) föreskrivs officialprincipen även för förvaltningsmyndigheter. I nuvarande förvaltningslag (1986:223) saknas... (More)
Denna uppsats behandlar utredningsskyldigheten i migrationsmål och syftar till att undersöka hur den påverkas av relationen mellan officialprincipen och den enskildes skyldighet att bistå utredningen efter bästa förmåga. Således redogör uppsatsen för utredningsskyldigheten för respektive instans i migrationsprocessen såväl som officialprincipen och den enskildes upplysningsplikt.
Officialprincipen kommer till uttryck i 8 § förvaltningsprocesslagen (1971:291) och ålägger förvaltningsdomstolar en skyldighet att tillse att ett mål blir så utrett som dess beskaffenhet kräver. I och med införandet av en¬ ny förvaltningslag (2017:900) föreskrivs officialprincipen även för förvaltningsmyndigheter. I nuvarande förvaltningslag (1986:223) saknas officialprincipen, men utredningsskyldigheten anses likväl följa av prejudikat och förarbeten. I och med att Migrationsverket är första instans i migrationsärenden åläggs verket således en utredningsskyldighet redan inför beslutsfattandet. Utredningsskyldigheten ser dock lite olika ut för Migrationsverket respektive migrationsdomstolarna. Eftersom tyngdpunkten av prövningen ska ligga i första instans, hos Migrationsverket, ska ärendet redan då vara så utrett att ett beslut kan fattas på godtagbara grunder. Det innebär också att migrationsdomstolen vid en eventuell överprövning endast ska behöva koncentrera sig på de aspekter av målet som är omstridda.
Upplysningsplikten inom migrationsrätten innebär att den sökande har en plikt att bistå asylutredningen efter bästa förmåga, dels genom att självmant lämna upplysningar och bevisning som stödjer utsagan, dels genom att besvara frågor och bidra till att reda ut eventuella oklarheter som kan uppkomma under utredningens gång. I asylprocessen förekommer en bevislättnadsregel för den sökande i form av tvivelsmålets fördel, vilken innebär att uppkomna tvivelsmål ska betraktas till den sökandes fördel.
Det kan uttryckas som att det i migrationsärenden föreligger ett slags spänning där officialprincipen, som ålägger myndigheter och domstolar ett ansvar, ställs mot den enskildes plikt att vara aktiv i processen. Hur dessa sedan förhåller sig till varandra påverkar därefter utredningsskyldigheten och hur den tillämpas. Det tycks därmed finnas grund för antagandet att upplysningsplikten och utredningsskyldigheten ständigt är beroende av varandra utan att för den skull var för sig kunna bestämmas exakt. (Less)
Abstract
This essay deals with the investigative obligation in migration cases and aims to investigate how this obligation is influenced by the relationship between the ex officio inquiry principle and the applicant’s duty to assist the investigation to the best of their ability. Thus, the investigative obligation for each instance in the migration process as well as the official principle and the applicant’s duty of disclosure is described.
The ex officio inquiry principle is expressed in section 8 of the Administrative Procedure Act (1971: 291) and imposes an obligation on administrative courts to ensure that a case is as investigated as its nature requires. With the introduction of the Single Management Act (2017: 900), the principle is also... (More)
This essay deals with the investigative obligation in migration cases and aims to investigate how this obligation is influenced by the relationship between the ex officio inquiry principle and the applicant’s duty to assist the investigation to the best of their ability. Thus, the investigative obligation for each instance in the migration process as well as the official principle and the applicant’s duty of disclosure is described.
The ex officio inquiry principle is expressed in section 8 of the Administrative Procedure Act (1971: 291) and imposes an obligation on administrative courts to ensure that a case is as investigated as its nature requires. With the introduction of the Single Management Act (2017: 900), the principle is also stipulated for administrative authorities. In the present management act (1986: 223) the principle is lacking, but the obligation to investigate is still considered valid following precedents and legislative history. As the Swedish Migration Agency is the first instance in migration cases, it is thus subject to an obligation to investigate before the decision-making process. The obligation to investigate, however, looks a little different for the Swedish Migration Agency and the Migration Courts. As the main point of the trial will be at the first instance, at the Swedish Migration Agency, the case shall already be so clear that a decision can be made on acceptable grounds. It also means that, in the event of a review, a Migration Court will have to concentrate only on the aspects of the objection that are contested.
The duty of disclosure in the field of migration law means that the applicant has a duty to assist the asylum investigation to the best of his ability, partly by providing information and evidence supporting the statement, partly by answering questions and helping to clarify any uncertainties that may arise during the investigation. In the asylum process, there is an eviction rule for the applicant in terms of the benefit of the doubt, which means that doubts must be considered to the applicant's advantage.
It can be expressed that there is a kind of tension in migration cases where the ex officio inquiry principle, which imposes responsibility on the authorities and courts, is against the individual's duty to be active in the process. How these then relate to each other thereafter affects the investigation obligation and the application of it. Thus, there appears to be grounds for the assumption that the obligation to provide information and the obligation to investigate is constantly dependent on each other but without being able to determine them precisely. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Thor, Katja LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Who will do the job? - About the investigation obligation in migration law
course
JURM02 20172
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
förvaltningsrätt, migrationsrätt, utredningsskyldighet, upplysningsplikt, officialprincipen
language
Swedish
id
8930225
date added to LUP
2018-01-22 13:28:50
date last changed
2019-06-12 13:09:41
@misc{8930225,
  abstract     = {This essay deals with the investigative obligation in migration cases and aims to investigate how this obligation is influenced by the relationship between the ex officio inquiry principle and the applicant’s duty to assist the investigation to the best of their ability. Thus, the investigative obligation for each instance in the migration process as well as the official principle and the applicant’s duty of disclosure is described.
The ex officio inquiry principle is expressed in section 8 of the Administrative Procedure Act (1971: 291) and imposes an obligation on administrative courts to ensure that a case is as investigated as its nature requires. With the introduction of the Single Management Act (2017: 900), the principle is also stipulated for administrative authorities. In the present management act (1986: 223) the principle is lacking, but the obligation to investigate is still considered valid following precedents and legislative history. As the Swedish Migration Agency is the first instance in migration cases, it is thus subject to an obligation to investigate before the decision-making process. The obligation to investigate, however, looks a little different for the Swedish Migration Agency and the Migration Courts. As the main point of the trial will be at the first instance, at the Swedish Migration Agency, the case shall already be so clear that a decision can be made on acceptable grounds. It also means that, in the event of a review, a Migration Court will have to concentrate only on the aspects of the objection that are contested.
The duty of disclosure in the field of migration law means that the applicant has a duty to assist the asylum investigation to the best of his ability, partly by providing information and evidence supporting the statement, partly by answering questions and helping to clarify any uncertainties that may arise during the investigation. In the asylum process, there is an eviction rule for the applicant in terms of the benefit of the doubt, which means that doubts must be considered to the applicant's advantage.
It can be expressed that there is a kind of tension in migration cases where the ex officio inquiry principle, which imposes responsibility on the authorities and courts, is against the individual's duty to be active in the process. How these then relate to each other thereafter affects the investigation obligation and the application of it. Thus, there appears to be grounds for the assumption that the obligation to provide information and the obligation to investigate is constantly dependent on each other but without being able to determine them precisely.},
  author       = {Thor, Katja},
  keyword      = {förvaltningsrätt,migrationsrätt,utredningsskyldighet,upplysningsplikt,officialprincipen},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Vem skall göra jobbet? - Om utredningsskyldigheten i migrationsrätten},
  year         = {2017},
}