Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Rättssäkerhet i dispositiva tvistemål - om den enskildes faktiska möjlighet till juridisk vägledning

Blennskog, Malin LU (2019) LAGF03 20192
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract
Civil proceedings can be divided into cases which are, and which are not, amenable to out-of-court settlement. In proceedings with no peremptory norms the parties themselves decide the substantive content of the legal dispute. According to Swedish law, the court’s responsibility to investigate is insignificant compared to civil cases with peremptory norms and criminal cases. The right to decide the content of a legal dispute is attributable to the parties’ freedom of contract. It is sometimes an advantage, but can also be a disadvantage for a party who is badly oriented in procedural law. The purpose of this thesis is to clarify in what extent rule of law is maintained in cases which are amenable to out-of-court settlement. To determine... (More)
Civil proceedings can be divided into cases which are, and which are not, amenable to out-of-court settlement. In proceedings with no peremptory norms the parties themselves decide the substantive content of the legal dispute. According to Swedish law, the court’s responsibility to investigate is insignificant compared to civil cases with peremptory norms and criminal cases. The right to decide the content of a legal dispute is attributable to the parties’ freedom of contract. It is sometimes an advantage, but can also be a disadvantage for a party who is badly oriented in procedural law. The purpose of this thesis is to clarify in what extent rule of law is maintained in cases which are amenable to out-of-court settlement. To determine applicable law, court practice and legislative history are the main sources of the thesis. The court has a duty of objectivity as well as to assure every person’s right to a judicial proceeding based on the substantive matter of the dispute. The fundamental qualification requirements for counsels to a party of a civil proceeding are presented in the thesis, followed by the court’s possibility to give substantive direction of proceedings. To fully investigate whether applicable law is in compliance with rule of law, the results of the thesis are analyzed from a critical point of view focusing on a party’s chances to procedural guiding.

There is no requirement for a counsel to be a member of The Swedish Bar Association, nor to be a law graduate. The qualification requirements are in general remarkably low. Regarding the court’s substantive direction of proceedings, there is a duty for the court to remedy unclear and incomplete statements made by the parties. While doing this, the duty of objectivity should never be set aside. The low requirements for counsels, combined with the freedom of contract between the parties and the court’s strictly maintained impartiality, risk to jeopardize rule of law in cases which are amenable to out-of-court settlement. A party with little legal knowledge who cannot afford to hire one of the best counsels, risks to lose the proceeding due to reasons not belonging to the actual content of the dispute. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
Domstolsprocessen i dispositiva tvistemål präglas av avtalsfrihet mellan parterna. Det är parterna själva som sätter ramarna för prövningen och domstolens utredningsansvar minskas väsentligt jämfört med indispositiva tvistemål och brottmål. För en juridiskt kunnig eller ekonomiskt stark part (med råd att anlita ett skickligt ombud) kan det vara en fördel att själv bestämma tvistens innehåll. Så är dock sällan fallet för gemene man. Syftet med uppsatsen är att klargöra dispositiva tvistemåls rättssäkerhetsgarantier för att säkra å ena sidan den enskildes rätt till en materiellt riktig prövning av tvisten, å andra sidan upprätthållande av domstolens objektivitet samt parternas avtalsfrihet. Dels undersöks vilka behörighetskrav som finns för... (More)
Domstolsprocessen i dispositiva tvistemål präglas av avtalsfrihet mellan parterna. Det är parterna själva som sätter ramarna för prövningen och domstolens utredningsansvar minskas väsentligt jämfört med indispositiva tvistemål och brottmål. För en juridiskt kunnig eller ekonomiskt stark part (med råd att anlita ett skickligt ombud) kan det vara en fördel att själv bestämma tvistens innehåll. Så är dock sällan fallet för gemene man. Syftet med uppsatsen är att klargöra dispositiva tvistemåls rättssäkerhetsgarantier för att säkra å ena sidan den enskildes rätt till en materiellt riktig prövning av tvisten, å andra sidan upprätthållande av domstolens objektivitet samt parternas avtalsfrihet. Dels undersöks vilka behörighetskrav som finns för rättegångsombud i dispositiva tvistemål, dels i vilken mån domstolen genom materiell processledning kan bistå en hjälpbehövande part. Uppsatsen bygger på rättsdogmatisk metod och präglas av ett kritiskt perspektiv med fokus på den enskildes rättssäkerhet.

Undersökningen visar att minimikraven för rättegångsombud i dispositiva tvistemål är låga och att en part som anlitar ett oskickligt ombud ofta får stå sitt kast. Inget krav på medlemskap i Sveriges advokatsamfund eller juridisk utbildning i övrigt föreligger. Domstolen har ett ansvar att klarlägga faktiska omständigheter inom ramen för de av parterna uppsatta ramarna men får aldrig riskera att objektiviteten ifrågasätts. Processledningens utformande och omfattning får avgöras i varje enskilt fall och det finns ofta ett flertal handlingsalternativ som alla utgör korrekt handläggning av ett mål. I vilken utsträckning partens hjälpbehov tillgodoses kan därför variera stort från fall till fall. De låga behörighetskraven för ombud i kombination med domstolens restriktiva skyldighet att processleda medför stora risker att en juridiskt okunnig eller ekonomiskt svag part förlorar målet på grund av omständigheter som egentligen inte tillhör dess tvistiga frågor. Upprätthållandet av parternas avtalsfrihet och domstolens opartiskhet riskerar på så vis att åsidosätta den enskildes rättssäkerhet. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Blennskog, Malin LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20192
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
Processrätt, processledning, rättegångsombud
language
Swedish
id
8999467
date added to LUP
2020-03-28 10:50:55
date last changed
2020-03-28 10:50:55
@misc{8999467,
  abstract     = {{Civil proceedings can be divided into cases which are, and which are not, amenable to out-of-court settlement. In proceedings with no peremptory norms the parties themselves decide the substantive content of the legal dispute. According to Swedish law, the court’s responsibility to investigate is insignificant compared to civil cases with peremptory norms and criminal cases. The right to decide the content of a legal dispute is attributable to the parties’ freedom of contract. It is sometimes an advantage, but can also be a disadvantage for a party who is badly oriented in procedural law. The purpose of this thesis is to clarify in what extent rule of law is maintained in cases which are amenable to out-of-court settlement. To determine applicable law, court practice and legislative history are the main sources of the thesis. The court has a duty of objectivity as well as to assure every person’s right to a judicial proceeding based on the substantive matter of the dispute. The fundamental qualification requirements for counsels to a party of a civil proceeding are presented in the thesis, followed by the court’s possibility to give substantive direction of proceedings. To fully investigate whether applicable law is in compliance with rule of law, the results of the thesis are analyzed from a critical point of view focusing on a party’s chances to procedural guiding. 

There is no requirement for a counsel to be a member of The Swedish Bar Association, nor to be a law graduate. The qualification requirements are in general remarkably low. Regarding the court’s substantive direction of proceedings, there is a duty for the court to remedy unclear and incomplete statements made by the parties. While doing this, the duty of objectivity should never be set aside. The low requirements for counsels, combined with the freedom of contract between the parties and the court’s strictly maintained impartiality, risk to jeopardize rule of law in cases which are amenable to out-of-court settlement. A party with little legal knowledge who cannot afford to hire one of the best counsels, risks to lose the proceeding due to reasons not belonging to the actual content of the dispute.}},
  author       = {{Blennskog, Malin}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Rättssäkerhet i dispositiva tvistemål - om den enskildes faktiska möjlighet till juridisk vägledning}},
  year         = {{2019}},
}