Advanced

Får domstolens rättstillämpning komma som en blixt från klar himmel? - En utredning av principen om jura novit curias förhållande till kontradiktionsprincipen

Ekström Ståhl, Anna LU (2018) LAGF03 20181
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Två grundläggande rättsgrundsatser inom civilprocessrätten är principen om jura novit curia och kontradiktionsprincipen. Jura novit curia innebär att domstolen känner lagen och att domstolen ska tillämpa den adekvata rättsregeln på tvisten, oavsett om parterna baserat sin talan på denna eller ej. Kontradiktionsprincipen, som både finns i intern svensk rätt och i EKMR, stadgar att ingen får dömas ohörd. Dessa två principer existerar parallellt. Det som är omdiskuterat är huruvida kontradiktionsprincipen skapar en rätt för parterna att bemöta den rättsregel som domstolen kommer grunda domen på och uppsatsen syftar till att undersöka detta och huruvida en sådan rätt i vart fall borde finnas. Inom doktrin finns blandade uppfattningar om detta,... (More)
Två grundläggande rättsgrundsatser inom civilprocessrätten är principen om jura novit curia och kontradiktionsprincipen. Jura novit curia innebär att domstolen känner lagen och att domstolen ska tillämpa den adekvata rättsregeln på tvisten, oavsett om parterna baserat sin talan på denna eller ej. Kontradiktionsprincipen, som både finns i intern svensk rätt och i EKMR, stadgar att ingen får dömas ohörd. Dessa två principer existerar parallellt. Det som är omdiskuterat är huruvida kontradiktionsprincipen skapar en rätt för parterna att bemöta den rättsregel som domstolen kommer grunda domen på och uppsatsen syftar till att undersöka detta och huruvida en sådan rätt i vart fall borde finnas. Inom doktrin finns blandade uppfattningar om detta, men det torde stå klart att de flesta anser att domstolen i vart fall bör underrätta parterna innan domslutet grundas på icke-åberopade rättsregler.
Med utgångspunkt i principernas tillämpningsområden aktualiseras även frågan om domstolens materiella processledning avseende rättsregler. Processledningen är först och främst inriktad på att berika och begränsa processmaterialet för att reda ut oklarheter i parternas talan. I RB stadgas inget uttryckligt om materiell processledning avseende rättsfrågor, men där uppställs heller inget hinder för detta.
HD har i sin praxis berört frågan flertalet gånger. I bl.a. NJA 1989 s. 614 konstateras jura novit curias starka ställning i svensk rätt. I resningsärendet till NJA 2016 s. 107 uttalade HD att parterna borde getts möjlighet att yttra sig i tvistemålet. Torgny Håstad har i samband med detta påstått att HD har skapat en plikt för domstolar att inhämta parternas synpunkter. Även NJA 1999 s. 629 ger uttryck för att parterna bör bli upplysta i de fall domstolen överväger att tillämpa en rättsregel som inte diskuterats under rättegången. Europadomstolen har ännu inte prövat frågan om jura novit curia i förhållande till kontradiktionsprincipen i dispositiva tvistemål och tills ett sådant avgörande kommer torde det vara oklart hur långt kontradiktionsprincipen sträcker sig.
Som rättsläget ser ut idag är det alltså tillåtet för domstolen att grunda sin dom på andra rättsregler än de som åberopats av parterna, utan att parterna förvarnas om detta. Dock bör kommunicering med parterna ske och det går därmed att utläsa att överraskande rättstillämpning inte är önskvärt. (Less)
Abstract
Two fundamental principles in the Swedish procedural code are the principle iura novit curia and the principle of an adversarial procedure. Iura novit curia means that the court knows the law and that the judge is responsible for the application of the relevant legal rules, whether the parties have based their pleadings on these or not. The principle of an adversarial procedure, which exists both in Swedish internal law and in the ECHR, states that the parties have the right not to be judged unheard. These two principles exist side by side. It is discussed whether the principle of an adversarial procedure creates a right for the parties to respond to the legal rule that the court will base its decision on. This thesis aims to examine this... (More)
Two fundamental principles in the Swedish procedural code are the principle iura novit curia and the principle of an adversarial procedure. Iura novit curia means that the court knows the law and that the judge is responsible for the application of the relevant legal rules, whether the parties have based their pleadings on these or not. The principle of an adversarial procedure, which exists both in Swedish internal law and in the ECHR, states that the parties have the right not to be judged unheard. These two principles exist side by side. It is discussed whether the principle of an adversarial procedure creates a right for the parties to respond to the legal rule that the court will base its decision on. This thesis aims to examine this question and whether such a right should exist. Within the doctrine there are some different opinions, but it is quite clear that the prevailing view is that the court should notify the parties before it bases its decision on other rules than those the parties raised during the process.
The issue concerning the material proceedings regarding the application of law is actualized by the application of these two principles. The material proceedings are first of all aiming to clarify uncertainties in the parties’ pleadings. The rules in RB do not express any explicit support for the notion that direction of proceedings encompasses the application of law, neither does it put up any bars for this notion.
The Swedish Supreme Court (HD) has touched the question a couple of time. I NJA 1989 s. 614 HD stated that iura novit curia has a strong position within swedish law. In the new trial case to NJA 2016 s. 107, HD expressed that the parties should have been given the opportunity to express themselves in the dispute. Torgny Håstad has in this context alleged that HD has created an obligation for the court to obtain the view of the parties. Also, NJA 1999 s. 629 expresses that the parties should be enlightened when the court is considering to applying another legal rule to the dispute other than those the parties have referred to. The European Court of Human Rights has not yet tried the issue about iura novit curia in relation to the principle of an adversarial procedure when it comes to civil disputes. Until such a judgement is created, it will probably be uncertain how far the principle of an adversarial procedure stretches.
The legal situation today allows the court to base its judgement on other legal rules than does quoted by the parties, without giving the parties such notice. However, communication ought to occur as surprising law enforcement is not desirable. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Ekström Ståhl, Anna LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20181
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
Processrätt, jura novit curia, kontradiktionsprincipen, materiell processledning, NJA 2016 s. 107
language
Swedish
id
8940842
date added to LUP
2018-07-01 20:27:24
date last changed
2018-07-01 20:27:24
@misc{8940842,
  abstract     = {Two fundamental principles in the Swedish procedural code are the principle iura novit curia and the principle of an adversarial procedure. Iura novit curia means that the court knows the law and that the judge is responsible for the application of the relevant legal rules, whether the parties have based their pleadings on these or not. The principle of an adversarial procedure, which exists both in Swedish internal law and in the ECHR, states that the parties have the right not to be judged unheard. These two principles exist side by side. It is discussed whether the principle of an adversarial procedure creates a right for the parties to respond to the legal rule that the court will base its decision on. This thesis aims to examine this question and whether such a right should exist. Within the doctrine there are some different opinions, but it is quite clear that the prevailing view is that the court should notify the parties before it bases its decision on other rules than those the parties raised during the process.
The issue concerning the material proceedings regarding the application of law is actualized by the application of these two principles. The material proceedings are first of all aiming to clarify uncertainties in the parties’ pleadings. The rules in RB do not express any explicit support for the notion that direction of proceedings encompasses the application of law, neither does it put up any bars for this notion.
The Swedish Supreme Court (HD) has touched the question a couple of time. I NJA 1989 s. 614 HD stated that iura novit curia has a strong position within swedish law. In the new trial case to NJA 2016 s. 107, HD expressed that the parties should have been given the opportunity to express themselves in the dispute. Torgny Håstad has in this context alleged that HD has created an obligation for the court to obtain the view of the parties. Also, NJA 1999 s. 629 expresses that the parties should be enlightened when the court is considering to applying another legal rule to the dispute other than those the parties have referred to. The European Court of Human Rights has not yet tried the issue about iura novit curia in relation to the principle of an adversarial procedure when it comes to civil disputes. Until such a judgement is created, it will probably be uncertain how far the principle of an adversarial procedure stretches.
The legal situation today allows the court to base its judgement on other legal rules than does quoted by the parties, without giving the parties such notice. However, communication ought to occur as surprising law enforcement is not desirable.},
  author       = {Ekström Ståhl, Anna},
  keyword      = {Processrätt,jura novit curia,kontradiktionsprincipen,materiell processledning,NJA 2016 s. 107},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Får domstolens rättstillämpning komma som en blixt från klar himmel? - En utredning av principen om jura novit curias förhållande till kontradiktionsprincipen},
  year         = {2018},
}