Advanced

På horisonten intet nytt - En utredning om förenligheten mellan svensk rätt och Europakonventionen beträffande horisontellt skadeståndsansvar mellan privata rättssubjekt

Grennard, Therese LU (2018) JURM02 20181
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract
The European Convention on Human Rights is an international convention aiming to assure certain human rights. The affiliated states undertake to guarantee each and everyone within their jurisdiction the freedoms and rights enacted in the Convention. Sweden has signed and ratified the Convention. Should the state transgress its undertakings it can be held responsible for the breach by the supervisory European Court of Human Rights. This vertical responsibility, between the state and the individual, is clearly stated in the Convention; more uncertain is what applies in a situation where one natural person violates another natural person’s Convention rights. In Sweden the question regarding horizontal indemnity liability directly based on the... (More)
The European Convention on Human Rights is an international convention aiming to assure certain human rights. The affiliated states undertake to guarantee each and everyone within their jurisdiction the freedoms and rights enacted in the Convention. Sweden has signed and ratified the Convention. Should the state transgress its undertakings it can be held responsible for the breach by the supervisory European Court of Human Rights. This vertical responsibility, between the state and the individual, is clearly stated in the Convention; more uncertain is what applies in a situation where one natural person violates another natural person’s Convention rights. In Sweden the question regarding horizontal indemnity liability directly based on the Convention was tried in the case NJA 2007 s. 747 (Trygg Hansa). The Surpreme Court held that the Convention does not explicitly demand that the states allow such an indemnity liability, nor is it suitable to implement as such with respect to the difficulties for the individual to anticipate the extent of such a liability.

Case law from the European Court of Human Rights has clarified that the state has a positive obligation to ensure that protection for the Convention rights are not only awarded in relation to the state, but also in relations between individuals. The vast majority of freedoms and rights secured by the Convention have equivalent protection in the national swedish legal system. However, certain asymmetry exists between these frameworks. This caught attention when Sweden was found in violation of the Convention in the case Söderman v. Sweden, regarding covert filming. The right to respect for one’s private life enacted in the Convention was not guaranteed by the swedish state as the act was not criminalised. Consequently the possibility of receiving compensation for the violation was excluded as the relevant regulation in the swedish law of tort, 2:3, states occurence of a crime as a prerequisite. Furthermore, the Trygg Hansa precedent made impossible for damages to be awarded directly based on the violation of the Convention; the perpetrator could not be held responsible and the violated stood without protection.

This essay examines whether the swedish legal system is consistent with the requirements deriving from the Convention undertakings in relation to the question regarding horizontal indemnity liabilities directly based on the Convention. I conclude that the Trygg Hansa precedent as such is not contradicting the Convention. However, I predict there are several gaps in the system of protection of the Convention rights in the swedish legal framework. This implicates that Sweden does not fully fulfill the demands of the Convention. Obliged to adress its shortcomings after the Söderman v. Sweden verdict, Sweden criminalised such covert filming. This solved the issue at hand, yet, in my opinion, the overall inadequacy persists: effective remedies remain unavailable in situations where an act is not criminalised in Sweden, but regardless infringes a Convention right. Implementation of a horizontal indemnity liability directly based on the Convention constitutes a comprehensive solution to the compatibility problem of the swedish legal system. Still, the Trygg Hansa precedent stands and no official investigation on the topic seems to be on the horizon. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
Europakonventionen är en internationell konvention som ämnar säkerställa vissa mänskliga rättigheter. De anslutna staterna åtar sig att garantera var och en inom deras jurisdiktion de fri- och rättigheter som stadgas i konventionen. Sverige har undertecknat och ratificerat konventionen. Om staten överträder sina konventions-åtaganden kan denna fällas till ansvar av den övervakande Europadomstolen. Detta vertikala ansvarsförhållande följer tydligt av konventionen; mer oklart är vad som gäller i den situationen ett privat rättssubjekt kränker ett annat privat rättssubjekts konventionsrättigheter. I Sverige prövades frågan om ett horisontellt skadeståndsansvar direkt grundat på Europakonventionen i NJA 2007 s. 747 (Trygg Hansa-fallet). Högsta... (More)
Europakonventionen är en internationell konvention som ämnar säkerställa vissa mänskliga rättigheter. De anslutna staterna åtar sig att garantera var och en inom deras jurisdiktion de fri- och rättigheter som stadgas i konventionen. Sverige har undertecknat och ratificerat konventionen. Om staten överträder sina konventions-åtaganden kan denna fällas till ansvar av den övervakande Europadomstolen. Detta vertikala ansvarsförhållande följer tydligt av konventionen; mer oklart är vad som gäller i den situationen ett privat rättssubjekt kränker ett annat privat rättssubjekts konventionsrättigheter. I Sverige prövades frågan om ett horisontellt skadeståndsansvar direkt grundat på Europakonventionen i NJA 2007 s. 747 (Trygg Hansa-fallet). Högsta domstolen ansåg att konventionen inte uttryckligen kräver att staterna tillåter ett skadeståndsansvar av detta slag och att det heller inte var lämpligt att implementera ett sådant med hänsyn till svårigheterna för den enskilde att förutse ett sådant ansvars omfattning.

I Europadomstolens praxis har klarlagts att staten har en positiv skyldighet att säkerställa att skydd för konventionsrättigheterna inte endast finns i förhållande till staten, utan även i förhållanden enskilda emellan. De allra flesta fri- och rättigheterna som skyddas av konventionen har motsvarande skydd i den nationella svenska rättsordningen. Emellertid råder en viss asymmetri i rättighetsskyddet vilket uppmärksammades i fallet Söderman mot Sverige, rörande smygfilmning, där Sverige fälldes till ansvar i Europadomstolen. Det skydd för privatliv som Europakonventionen stadgar garanterades inte genom att gärningen var kriminaliserad i svensk rätt. Som följd fanns det då inte heller möjlighet att erhålla skadestånd eftersom den mest relevanta skadeståndsrättsliga bestämmelsen, skadeståndslagen 2:3, endast kan tillämpas då brott har konstaterats. Vidare omöjliggjorde prejudikatet från Trygg Hansa-fallet att skadestånd dömdes ut direkt på grundval av konventionskränkningen; gärningsmannen kunde därför inte hållas ansvarig och den kränkte stod utan skydd.

I detta arbete utreds huruvida den svenska rättsordningen är förenlig med de krav som följer av Sveriges konventionsåtaganden i förhållande till frågan om horisontellt direkt konventionsgrundat skadeståndsansvar. Min slutsats är att Trygg Hansa-fallet och ståndpunkten däri inte strider mot konventionens krav i sig. Däremot torde det finnas ett flertal luckor i den svenska rättsordningens rättighetsskydd vilka innebär att Sverige inte fullt lever upp till Europakonventionens krav. Efter fallet Söderman mot Sverige var Sverige skyldigt att åtgärda de brister som konstaterats, och detta gjordes genom att smygfilmning av det aktuella slaget kriminaliserades. Jag anser att även om detta var en effektiv lösning undanröjdes inte det mer övergripande problemet: den generella bristen på tillhandahållande av effektiva rättsmedel i de fall en gärning inte utgör ett brott i svensk rätt men ändå utgör en konventionskränkning. Implementerande av ett horisontellt skadeståndsansvar direkt grundat på Europakonventionen utgör en heltäckande lösning på den svenska rättsordningens förenlighetsproblem. Emellertid står sig Trygg Hansa-prejudikatet och någon officiell utredning om frågan tycks inte skymta vid horisonten. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Grennard, Therese LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
All Quiet on the Horizon - An investigation of the compatibility between the swedish legal system and the European Convention on Human Rights with regards to horizontal indemnity liability between natural persons
course
JURM02 20181
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
folkrätt, public international law, skadeståndsrätt, tort law, Europakonventionen, European Convention on Human Rights, EKMR, ECHR
language
Swedish
id
8939881
date added to LUP
2018-06-08 10:40:08
date last changed
2018-06-08 10:40:08
@misc{8939881,
  abstract     = {The European Convention on Human Rights is an international convention aiming to assure certain human rights. The affiliated states undertake to guarantee each and everyone within their jurisdiction the freedoms and rights enacted in the Convention. Sweden has signed and ratified the Convention. Should the state transgress its undertakings it can be held responsible for the breach by the supervisory European Court of Human Rights. This vertical responsibility, between the state and the individual, is clearly stated in the Convention; more uncertain is what applies in a situation where one natural person violates another natural person’s Convention rights. In Sweden the question regarding horizontal indemnity liability directly based on the Convention was tried in the case NJA 2007 s. 747 (Trygg Hansa). The Surpreme Court held that the Convention does not explicitly demand that the states allow such an indemnity liability, nor is it suitable to implement as such with respect to the difficulties for the individual to anticipate the extent of such a liability.

Case law from the European Court of Human Rights has clarified that the state has a positive obligation to ensure that protection for the Convention rights are not only awarded in relation to the state, but also in relations between individuals. The vast majority of freedoms and rights secured by the Convention have equivalent protection in the national swedish legal system. However, certain asymmetry exists between these frameworks. This caught attention when Sweden was found in violation of the Convention in the case Söderman v. Sweden, regarding covert filming. The right to respect for one’s private life enacted in the Convention was not guaranteed by the swedish state as the act was not criminalised. Consequently the possibility of receiving compensation for the violation was excluded as the relevant regulation in the swedish law of tort, 2:3, states occurence of a crime as a prerequisite. Furthermore, the Trygg Hansa precedent made impossible for damages to be awarded directly based on the violation of the Convention; the perpetrator could not be held responsible and the violated stood without protection.

This essay examines whether the swedish legal system is consistent with the requirements deriving from the Convention undertakings in relation to the question regarding horizontal indemnity liabilities directly based on the Convention. I conclude that the Trygg Hansa precedent as such is not contradicting the Convention. However, I predict there are several gaps in the system of protection of the Convention rights in the swedish legal framework. This implicates that Sweden does not fully fulfill the demands of the Convention. Obliged to adress its shortcomings after the Söderman v. Sweden verdict, Sweden criminalised such covert filming. This solved the issue at hand, yet, in my opinion, the overall inadequacy persists: effective remedies remain unavailable in situations where an act is not criminalised in Sweden, but regardless infringes a Convention right. Implementation of a horizontal indemnity liability directly based on the Convention constitutes a comprehensive solution to the compatibility problem of the swedish legal system. Still, the Trygg Hansa precedent stands and no official investigation on the topic seems to be on the horizon.},
  author       = {Grennard, Therese},
  keyword      = {folkrätt,public international law,skadeståndsrätt,tort law,Europakonventionen,European Convention on Human Rights,EKMR,ECHR},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {På horisonten intet nytt - En utredning om förenligheten mellan svensk rätt och Europakonventionen beträffande horisontellt skadeståndsansvar mellan privata rättssubjekt},
  year         = {2018},
}