Advanced

Utredningsansvaret i asylärenden - omfattningen av Migrationsverkets och migrationsdomstolarnas utredningsansvar

Larsson, Lova LU (2017) JURM02 20172
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Syftet med uppsatsen är att undersöka omfattningen av utredningsansvaret i asylärenden. Uppsatsen börjar med en redogörelse av migrationsprocessen och de intressen som vägts in vid processens utformning. Enligt förarbetena till utlänningslagen (2005:716) är det av vikt att migrationsprocessen är snabb, effektiv och rättssäker. Eftersom det är viktigt att processen inte blir allt för långdragen så finns det i migrationsärenden endast två domstolsinstanser. Kammarrätten, i migrationsärenden kallad Migrationsöverdomstolen, blir i migrationsmål sista instans istället för Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen. Som sista instans har Migrationsöverdomstolen ansvaret för prejudikatbildningen på migrationsområdet. Möjligheten att få prövningstillstånd hos... (More)
Syftet med uppsatsen är att undersöka omfattningen av utredningsansvaret i asylärenden. Uppsatsen börjar med en redogörelse av migrationsprocessen och de intressen som vägts in vid processens utformning. Enligt förarbetena till utlänningslagen (2005:716) är det av vikt att migrationsprocessen är snabb, effektiv och rättssäker. Eftersom det är viktigt att processen inte blir allt för långdragen så finns det i migrationsärenden endast två domstolsinstanser. Kammarrätten, i migrationsärenden kallad Migrationsöverdomstolen, blir i migrationsmål sista instans istället för Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen. Som sista instans har Migrationsöverdomstolen ansvaret för prejudikatbildningen på migrationsområdet. Möjligheten att få prövningstillstånd hos Migrationsöverdomstolen är begränsat till prejudikatdispens och extraordinärdispens. Att det endast finns två domstolsinstanser varav den ena kräver prövningstillstånd innebär att det är viktigt att utredningen hos förvaltningsmyndigheten, Migrationsverket, inte innehåller brister. Om Migrationsverket fattar sitt beslut på en bristfällig utredning kan parten gå miste om en överprövning i dess rätta bemärkelse. För att öka öppenheten i processen är det numera en tvåpartsprocess där den sökande har Migrationsverket som motpart. Tvåpartsprocessen leder till att utredningen blir fylligare utan att domstolen behöver processleda.

Migrationsverket är en förvaltningsmyndighet och migrationsdomstolarna är förvaltningsdomstolar. Uppdelningen har betydelse eftersom förvaltningsmyndigheter tillämpar förvaltningslagen (1986:223) medan förvaltningsdomstolar tillämpar förvaltningsprocesslagen (1971:291). Domstolarnas utredningsansvar framgår av 8 § förvaltningsprocesslagen. Det finns ingen motsvarande paragraf i förvaltningslagen men enligt allmänna förvaltningsrättsliga principer har även förvaltningsmyndigheter ett utredningsansvar. Uppdelningen har även betydelse eftersom förvaltningsmyndigheter och förvaltningsdomstolarna har lite olika roller. Förvaltningsdomstolarna har en renodlad rättskipande roll. Förvaltningsmyndigheterna som har en dubbel roll ska utöver sin rättskipande roll även ta tillvara på de intressen som kommer till uttryck i den materiella lagstiftningen.

Av 8 § förvaltningsprocesslagen framgår att officialprincipen gäller för förvaltningsdomstolarna. Att officialprincipen även gäller för förvaltningsmyndigheterna framgår av allmänna förvaltningsrättsliga principer. En viktig fråga när officialprincipen gäller är hur långt utredningsansvaret sträcker sig. Av 8 § förvaltningsprocesslagen framgår att rätten ska se till att målet blir så utrett som dess beskaffenhet kräver. Målets beskaffenhet utgörs av två delar; målets materiella karaktär och partsförhållandet i målet. Det är svårt att generellt fastställa målens beskaffenhet och även inom samma måltyp kan utredningsansvaret skilja sig åt. I vissa asylmål finns ett det större skyddsbehov vilket även medför ett större utredningsansvar.

Beviskravet, bevisbördan, utredningsbördan, om parten har ett ombud och om processen är en tvåpartsprocess påverkar utredningsansvarets omfattning. Beviskravet i asylmål är sannolikt och det är den styrkan som krävs på bevisningen för att parten ska få sin önskade utgång i målet. Den sökande har bevisbördan för att haneller hon behöver internationellt skydd, men i vissa situationer kan bevisbördan gå över på Migrationsverket. Det är alltid Migrationsverket som har bevisbördan för att en uteslutandegrund är tillämplig eller för att det finns en möjlighet för den sökande att få internt skydd. Utredningsansvaret följer oftast bevisbördan men i asylmål är den delad mellan den sökande och Migrationsverket samt migrationsdomstolarna. Att den sökande har ett ombud påverkar utredningen eftersom det då oftast behövs mindre processledning från domstolen. Tvåpartsprocessen medför att parterna själva tillför mer bevisning och domstolen behöver då inte stå för lika mycket utredning. (Less)
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to examine the extent of the enquiry responsibility for migration courts and the Swedish Migration Agency in asylum cases. The paper starts with an account of the migration procedure and the interests that shaped the procedure. It is according to the legislative history of the Alien Act (2005:716) important that the migration procedure is quick, effective and in compliance with the rule of law. As it is important that the procedure is not too time consuming there are only two court instances. The Administrative Court of Appeal, in migration cases known as the Migration Court of appeal, becomes the last court instance instead of the Supreme Administrative Court in migration cases. As the last court instance, the... (More)
The purpose of this paper is to examine the extent of the enquiry responsibility for migration courts and the Swedish Migration Agency in asylum cases. The paper starts with an account of the migration procedure and the interests that shaped the procedure. It is according to the legislative history of the Alien Act (2005:716) important that the migration procedure is quick, effective and in compliance with the rule of law. As it is important that the procedure is not too time consuming there are only two court instances. The Administrative Court of Appeal, in migration cases known as the Migration Court of appeal, becomes the last court instance instead of the Supreme Administrative Court in migration cases. As the last court instance, the Migration Court of Appeal has the responsibility of setting precedents. The opportunity to get dispensation review by the Migration Court of Appeal is limited to precedent exemption and extraordinary exemption. The fact that there are only two court instances of which one only accept cases that have dispensation review means that it is important that the investigation of the Migration Agency don’t contain any errors. If the Migration Agency makes their decision based on a flawed investigation, then one party can lose his or her opportunity to a review in the real sense of the word. To improve upon the transparency in the procedure it is now a two-party procedure where the asylum seeker has the Migration Agency as it’s opponent. The two-party procedure makes the enquiry more substantial without direction of proceedings from the court.

The Migration Agency is an administrative authority and the migration courts are administrative courts. The differentiation is important as the administrative authority administer the Administrative Procedure Act (1986:223) and administrative courts administer the Administrative Court Procedure Act (1971:291). The courts enquiry responsibility is stated in the 8 § of the Administrative Court Procedure Act. There is no corresponding paragraph in the Administrative Procedure Act but the Migration Agency also have an enquiry responsibility according to general administrative law principles. The administrative authority and administrative courts also have different roles in the administration. Administrative courts are judicial organs and are supposed to have a role solely as the administrator of justice. Administrative authorities have two purposes they are judicial organs, but they also have the responsibility of making sure the interests expressed in the substantive laws are realized.

It is clear from the 8 § of the Administrative Court Procedure Act that the ex officio enquiry principle (officialprincipen) is applicable to the administrative courts. The principal is also applicable to the administrative authority according to general administrative law principles. When the principle is applicable an important question is how far the enquiry responsibility stretches. The 8 § of the Administrative Court Procedure Act states that the court is supposed to investigate the case in the way the nature of the case demands. The nature of the case consists of two parts; the material character of the case and the strength of the party’s in relation to each other. Generally determining the nature of cases is hard and even in the same type of case the enquiry responsibility may differ. In some asylum cases there are a greater need of protection which leads to a greater enquiry responsibility.

The evidentiary requirement, the burden of proof, the burden of enquiry, if the party have a counsel and if the procedure is a two-party procedure impacts the extent of the enquiry responsibility. The evidentiary requirement in asylum cases is probable and that is the level evidence must reach for the applicant to be granted asylum. The asylum seeker has the burden of proof that he or she is in need of international protection. In some cases, the burden of proof might shift and is instead on the Migration Agency. The Migration Agency is always responsible for proving that an exclusion clause is applicable or that the applicant can make use of internal protection alternatives. The party that has the burden of proof usually also have the burden of enquiry but in asylum cases the burden of enquiry is split between the asylum seeker and the Migration Agency. If the asylum seeker has a counsel that may impact the enquiry responsibility as less direction of proceedings is needed from the court. The implementation of the two-party procedure means that the party’s themselves add more evidence and the courts don’t have to do as much of the enquiry. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Larsson, Lova LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
The enquiry responsibility in asylum cases - the extent of the enquiriy responsibility of the Swedish Migration Agency and the migration courts
course
JURM02 20172
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Förvaltningsrätt
language
Swedish
id
8930379
date added to LUP
2018-01-22 13:31:10
date last changed
2018-01-22 13:31:10
@misc{8930379,
  abstract     = {The purpose of this paper is to examine the extent of the enquiry responsibility for migration courts and the Swedish Migration Agency in asylum cases. The paper starts with an account of the migration procedure and the interests that shaped the procedure. It is according to the legislative history of the Alien Act (2005:716) important that the migration procedure is quick, effective and in compliance with the rule of law. As it is important that the procedure is not too time consuming there are only two court instances. The Administrative Court of Appeal, in migration cases known as the Migration Court of appeal, becomes the last court instance instead of the Supreme Administrative Court in migration cases. As the last court instance, the Migration Court of Appeal has the responsibility of setting precedents. The opportunity to get dispensation review by the Migration Court of Appeal is limited to precedent exemption and extraordinary exemption. The fact that there are only two court instances of which one only accept cases that have dispensation review means that it is important that the investigation of the Migration Agency don’t contain any errors. If the Migration Agency makes their decision based on a flawed investigation, then one party can lose his or her opportunity to a review in the real sense of the word. To improve upon the transparency in the procedure it is now a two-party procedure where the asylum seeker has the Migration Agency as it’s opponent. The two-party procedure makes the enquiry more substantial without direction of proceedings from the court.

The Migration Agency is an administrative authority and the migration courts are administrative courts. The differentiation is important as the administrative authority administer the Administrative Procedure Act (1986:223) and administrative courts administer the Administrative Court Procedure Act (1971:291). The courts enquiry responsibility is stated in the 8 § of the Administrative Court Procedure Act. There is no corresponding paragraph in the Administrative Procedure Act but the Migration Agency also have an enquiry responsibility according to general administrative law principles. The administrative authority and administrative courts also have different roles in the administration. Administrative courts are judicial organs and are supposed to have a role solely as the administrator of justice. Administrative authorities have two purposes they are judicial organs, but they also have the responsibility of making sure the interests expressed in the substantive laws are realized.

It is clear from the 8 § of the Administrative Court Procedure Act that the ex officio enquiry principle (officialprincipen) is applicable to the administrative courts. The principal is also applicable to the administrative authority according to general administrative law principles. When the principle is applicable an important question is how far the enquiry responsibility stretches. The 8 § of the Administrative Court Procedure Act states that the court is supposed to investigate the case in the way the nature of the case demands. The nature of the case consists of two parts; the material character of the case and the strength of the party’s in relation to each other. Generally determining the nature of cases is hard and even in the same type of case the enquiry responsibility may differ. In some asylum cases there are a greater need of protection which leads to a greater enquiry responsibility.

The evidentiary requirement, the burden of proof, the burden of enquiry, if the party have a counsel and if the procedure is a two-party procedure impacts the extent of the enquiry responsibility. The evidentiary requirement in asylum cases is probable and that is the level evidence must reach for the applicant to be granted asylum. The asylum seeker has the burden of proof that he or she is in need of international protection. In some cases, the burden of proof might shift and is instead on the Migration Agency. The Migration Agency is always responsible for proving that an exclusion clause is applicable or that the applicant can make use of internal protection alternatives. The party that has the burden of proof usually also have the burden of enquiry but in asylum cases the burden of enquiry is split between the asylum seeker and the Migration Agency. If the asylum seeker has a counsel that may impact the enquiry responsibility as less direction of proceedings is needed from the court. The implementation of the two-party procedure means that the party’s themselves add more evidence and the courts don’t have to do as much of the enquiry.},
  author       = {Larsson, Lova},
  keyword      = {Förvaltningsrätt},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Utredningsansvaret i asylärenden - omfattningen av Migrationsverkets och migrationsdomstolarnas utredningsansvar},
  year         = {2017},
}