Advanced

Ett prejudiciellt avgörande eller en kostsam process? - En kritisk granskning av mellandomsinstitutet, kumulationsförfarandet & pilotmålsmodellen

Persson, Gustav LU (2018) LAGF03 20182
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Den moderna tidens tekniska utveckling har lett till att allt större och mer omfattande skadeståndsmål anhängiggörs i domstolarna. Fler sakägare är berörda, de tvistiga frågorna i målet är allt mer tekniskt komplicerade och bevismaterialet är omfattande. Domstolarna har stundom hanterat en sådan situation genom att använda sig av pilotmålsmodellen. Modellen har ingen klar definition och användningsområdet är diffust. Trots att modellen är vedertagen och används frekvent ger rättegångsbalken ingen vägledning till vad modellen ska anses vara för rättsfigur.
Framställningen utgår i första hand från ett processrättsligt perspektiv och avgränsar sig till domstolarnas möjligheter att förena eller få fram prejudiciella avgöranden i stora och... (More)
Den moderna tidens tekniska utveckling har lett till att allt större och mer omfattande skadeståndsmål anhängiggörs i domstolarna. Fler sakägare är berörda, de tvistiga frågorna i målet är allt mer tekniskt komplicerade och bevismaterialet är omfattande. Domstolarna har stundom hanterat en sådan situation genom att använda sig av pilotmålsmodellen. Modellen har ingen klar definition och användningsområdet är diffust. Trots att modellen är vedertagen och används frekvent ger rättegångsbalken ingen vägledning till vad modellen ska anses vara för rättsfigur.
Framställningen utgår i första hand från ett processrättsligt perspektiv och avgränsar sig till domstolarnas möjligheter att förena eller få fram prejudiciella avgöranden i stora och svårhanterliga processer, där flera sakägare har ett intresse av att få sin sak prövad mot samma skadevållare/svarande/sökande. Kumulation hade kunnat vara en bra lösning för att förena många sakägare vars talan grundar sig på väsentligt samma grund. Även mellandomsinstitutet hade kunnat användas för att välja ut en prejudiciell fråga utan att behöva driva målet i sin helhet. Användningen av dessa processföringsformer är dock restriktiv.
För att förstå domstolens återhållsamhet belyser uppsatsen genom en rättsdogmatisk metod några viktiga grundläggande processrättsliga begrepp som rättsfaktum, rättskraft, bevisfaktum och bevisverkan som i sin kontext till prejudiciella avgöranden knyter an till en doms processuella verkningar. Tillsammans med begreppen och en jämförelse mellan mellandomen och pilotmålsmodellen, utreds vad pilotmålsmodellen ska anses vara för rättsfigur och varför de redan etablerade instituten används restriktivt.
Pilotmålsmodellen är egentligen i processrättslig mening enbart en vanlig traditionell tvåpartsprocess. Utanför processen har domen i pilotmålet karaktären av en mellandom och får funktion genom sin bevisverkan.
Rättegångsbalkens (1942:740) uppbyggnad och sambandet mellan dess svårhanterliga bestämmelser gör att användningen av kumulation och mellandom i praktiken inte blir möjlig i stora och komplicerade massprocesser. Det blir enklare, både rent lagtekniskt och i processekonomiskt hänseende, att driva några pilotmål för att få ett vägledande avgörande än att meddela mellandomar med risken att de inte leder till ett prejudiciellt avgörande.
En mer modern utformning av mellandomsreglerna hade kunnat utöka möjligheten för domstolarna att välja ut och pröva prejudiciella frågor utan att behöva föra hela processer till sitt slut. Vi hade då uppnått processekonomiska fördelar och en ökad rättssäkerhet. (Less)
Abstract
Technological development in modern times has led to increasingly larger and more extensive tort cases being brought before courts. The processes are difficult to handle, time-consuming and costly. The courts have occasionally handled the situation by using a model called “pilotmålsmodellen” (or “test case model”). The model has no clear definition and the field of usage is indistinct. The model is often used despite not being defined in legislation.
The paper is based on a procedural perspective and the main focus is the court’s possibilities to reconcile cases or the possibility for the court to create precedent rulings in large and unmanageable processes, which is of concern for many people who want to have their case tried against... (More)
Technological development in modern times has led to increasingly larger and more extensive tort cases being brought before courts. The processes are difficult to handle, time-consuming and costly. The courts have occasionally handled the situation by using a model called “pilotmålsmodellen” (or “test case model”). The model has no clear definition and the field of usage is indistinct. The model is often used despite not being defined in legislation.
The paper is based on a procedural perspective and the main focus is the court’s possibilities to reconcile cases or the possibility for the court to create precedent rulings in large and unmanageable processes, which is of concern for many people who want to have their case tried against the same defendant.
Joining claims can be a good solution for reconciling many concerned parties whose claims are based on essentially the same grounds, or intermediate judgment to select a question of Principle importance without having to pursue a case in its entirety. However, the use of these legal institutes is restrictive.
In order to understand the court’s restraint, the thesis highlights a few important and essential procedural concepts such as dispositive fact (rättsfaktum), legal force (rättskraft), evidentiary fact (bevisfaktum) and probative (bevisverkan) in its context to precedent rulings, related to a judgement’s judicial, procedural effect. Together with these legal concepts and a comparison between intermediate judgement and the test case model, the paper investigates what kind of legal framework the test case model should be interpreted as and why the courts are restrictive to use the institutes that are already established.
The test case is actually, in a formal procedural sense, merely an ordinary process. However outside the process, it has the character of an intermediate judgement. The judgement has the function as a case with probative value.
The structure of the Swedish code of judicial procedure (rättegångsbalken (1942:740)) and the connection between its difficultly managed regulations makes it problematic to use the rules about joinder and intermediate judgments. In practice, it is almost impossible in a complicated large-scale process. It is therefore easier in a legal technical way to not apply the rules. If you consider time elapsed and costs for litigation it is easier to pursue some test cases in order to obtain indicative judgements, rather than to deliver an intermediate judge with the risk that the judgment won’t give any directives.
A more modern legal framework would increase the possibility for courts to select and test a question that would be indicative for other cases without having to conclude the entire process. We would achieve benefits both regarding process economics and increased legal certainty. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Persson, Gustav LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20182
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
processrätt, civil procedure, pilotmålsmodellen, pilotmål, pilotfall, test case, mellandom, kumulation, rättsfaktum, rättsfakta, bevisfaktum, rättskraft, bevisverkan, joining claims, intermediate judgmen, bevisverkansmål, komplexa rättsfakta, moment av ett rättsfaktum
language
Swedish
id
8965543
date added to LUP
2019-03-11 11:20:05
date last changed
2019-03-11 11:20:05
@misc{8965543,
  abstract     = {Technological development in modern times has led to increasingly larger and more extensive tort cases being brought before courts. The processes are difficult to handle, time-consuming and costly. The courts have occasionally handled the situation by using a model called “pilotmålsmodellen” (or “test case model”). The model has no clear definition and the field of usage is indistinct. The model is often used despite not being defined in legislation.
	The paper is based on a procedural perspective and the main focus is the court’s possibilities to reconcile cases or the possibility for the court to create precedent rulings in large and unmanageable processes, which is of concern for many people who want to have their case tried against the same defendant. 
	Joining claims can be a good solution for reconciling many concerned parties whose claims are based on essentially the same grounds, or intermediate judgment to select a question of Principle importance without having to pursue a case in its entirety. However, the use of these legal institutes is restrictive.
	In order to understand the court’s restraint, the thesis highlights a few important and essential procedural concepts such as dispositive fact (rättsfaktum), legal force (rättskraft), evidentiary fact (bevisfaktum) and probative (bevisverkan) in its context to precedent rulings, related to a judgement’s judicial, procedural effect. Together with these legal concepts and a comparison between intermediate judgement and the test case model, the paper investigates what kind of legal framework the test case model should be interpreted as and why the courts are restrictive to use the institutes that are already established. 
	The test case is actually, in a formal procedural sense, merely an ordinary process. However outside the process, it has the character of an intermediate judgement. The judgement has the function as a case with probative value. 
	The structure of the Swedish code of judicial procedure (rättegångsbalken (1942:740)) and the connection between its difficultly managed regulations makes it problematic to use the rules about joinder and intermediate judgments. In practice, it is almost impossible in a complicated large-scale process. It is therefore easier in a legal technical way to not apply the rules. If you consider time elapsed and costs for litigation it is easier to pursue some test cases in order to obtain indicative judgements, rather than to deliver an intermediate judge with the risk that the judgment won’t give any directives.
	A more modern legal framework would increase the possibility for courts to select and test a question that would be indicative for other cases without having to conclude the entire process. We would achieve benefits both regarding process economics and increased legal certainty.},
  author       = {Persson, Gustav},
  keyword      = {processrätt,civil procedure,pilotmålsmodellen,pilotmål,pilotfall,test case,mellandom,kumulation,rättsfaktum,rättsfakta,bevisfaktum,rättskraft,bevisverkan,joining claims,intermediate judgmen,bevisverkansmål,komplexa rättsfakta,moment av ett rättsfaktum},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Ett prejudiciellt avgörande eller en kostsam process? - En kritisk granskning av mellandomsinstitutet, kumulationsförfarandet & pilotmålsmodellen},
  year         = {2018},
}