Avtal om att föra annans talan - en processrättslig problematisering
(2020) JURM02 20202Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract
- A person who has a legal claim against another party can bring his claim before a court. The fundamental right of access to court is expressed in Article 6(1) of the ECHR. However, it is common that a plaintiff or a potential defendant enters into agreement with a third party implying that the latter shall bring the claim before court instead of the plaintiff/defendant. The purpose of this essay has been to examine such agreements and answer whether or not these can be considered as procedurally acceptable. The analysis especially addresses the fact that such procedural agreements reduces the right of access to court, and thereby, whether the parties should be allowed to enter into them with binding force.
The purpose of the essay has... (More) - A person who has a legal claim against another party can bring his claim before a court. The fundamental right of access to court is expressed in Article 6(1) of the ECHR. However, it is common that a plaintiff or a potential defendant enters into agreement with a third party implying that the latter shall bring the claim before court instead of the plaintiff/defendant. The purpose of this essay has been to examine such agreements and answer whether or not these can be considered as procedurally acceptable. The analysis especially addresses the fact that such procedural agreements reduces the right of access to court, and thereby, whether the parties should be allowed to enter into them with binding force.
The purpose of the essay has been achieved through an analysis of two agreements in relation to the procedural order and procedural safeguards. The agreements have had different approaches. Regarding the first, the contracting party basically refrains his claim, meanwhile the second, the contracting party basically is deprived his claim. Using the doctrinal research method, the thesis has answered what the procedural competence is based on, the relation to the right to bring an action before a court, whether the agreements are fair waivers from the right to access to court which is guaranteed through Article 6(1) ECHR and lastly, if the agreements are reconcilable with the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure.
The conclusion of the essay is that both the agreements are partially procedurally acceptable. The agreements can be explained in relation to procedural competence and to the right of action before court. In addition, they seem to be fair waivers from the right to access to court pursuant to Article 6(1) ECHR. However, the agreements are more difficult to reconcile with the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure and its underlying purposes. (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- Den som har ett rättsligt anspråk gentemot någon annan kan väcka talan i domstol för att låta anspråket komma under rättslig prövning. Rätten till domstolsprövning garanteras genom artikel 6(1) EKMR. Det förekommer emellertid att en kärande eller en potentiell svarande ingår avtal med någon utomstående med innebörden att den senare ska föra kärandens eller den potentielle svarandens talan vid domstol. Syftet med uppsatsen har varit att undersöka sådana avtal och besvara frågan huruvida de kan anses vara processrättsligt godtagbara. Undersökningen görs mot bakgrund av att avtalen innebär att rätten till domstolsprövning begränsas på olika sätt och att det, särskilt med tanke på den processuella ogiltighetsprincipen, inte är självklart att... (More)
- Den som har ett rättsligt anspråk gentemot någon annan kan väcka talan i domstol för att låta anspråket komma under rättslig prövning. Rätten till domstolsprövning garanteras genom artikel 6(1) EKMR. Det förekommer emellertid att en kärande eller en potentiell svarande ingår avtal med någon utomstående med innebörden att den senare ska föra kärandens eller den potentielle svarandens talan vid domstol. Syftet med uppsatsen har varit att undersöka sådana avtal och besvara frågan huruvida de kan anses vara processrättsligt godtagbara. Undersökningen görs mot bakgrund av att avtalen innebär att rätten till domstolsprövning begränsas på olika sätt och att det, särskilt med tanke på den processuella ogiltighetsprincipen, inte är självklart att parter kan träffa sådana processuella avtal.
För att uppnå syftet har två avtalssituationer analyserats utifrån ett processrättsligt perspektiv. Härvid har även ett rättssäkerhetsperspektiv anlagts. Avtalssituationerna har karaktäriserats och därefter problematiserats i förhållande till den processuella ordningen. Avtalssituationerna har haft olika utgångspunkter. Beträffande den första ger avtalsparten i princip bort sin talan medan beträffande den andra blir avtalsparten i princip fråntagen sin talan. Med användning av den rättsdogmatiska metoden har besvarats på vad den processuella behörigheten i respektive situation grundas, hur avtalssituationerna förhåller sig till talerättsinstitutet, om de utgör godtagbara avståenden från rätten till domstolsprövning enligt artikel 6(1) EKMR samt om de är förenliga med rättegångsbalkens regelverk.
Slutsatsen är att båda avtalssituationerna till viss del är processuellt godtagbara. Situationerna går att förklara processuellt vad gäller behörighet och talerätt, och de tycks utgöra godtagbara avståenden från rätten till domstolsprövning enligt artikel 6(1) EKMR. Däremot är de mer svårförenliga med rättegångsbalkens bakomliggande syften och tankegångar. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9033892
- author
- Gerhardsson, Linn LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- An analysis of agreements to appear for somebody in court
- course
- JURM02 20202
- year
- 2020
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- civilrätt, processrätt, talerätt
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9033892
- date added to LUP
- 2021-01-21 14:10:02
- date last changed
- 2021-01-21 14:10:02
@misc{9033892,
abstract = {{A person who has a legal claim against another party can bring his claim before a court. The fundamental right of access to court is expressed in Article 6(1) of the ECHR. However, it is common that a plaintiff or a potential defendant enters into agreement with a third party implying that the latter shall bring the claim before court instead of the plaintiff/defendant. The purpose of this essay has been to examine such agreements and answer whether or not these can be considered as procedurally acceptable. The analysis especially addresses the fact that such procedural agreements reduces the right of access to court, and thereby, whether the parties should be allowed to enter into them with binding force.
The purpose of the essay has been achieved through an analysis of two agreements in relation to the procedural order and procedural safeguards. The agreements have had different approaches. Regarding the first, the contracting party basically refrains his claim, meanwhile the second, the contracting party basically is deprived his claim. Using the doctrinal research method, the thesis has answered what the procedural competence is based on, the relation to the right to bring an action before a court, whether the agreements are fair waivers from the right to access to court which is guaranteed through Article 6(1) ECHR and lastly, if the agreements are reconcilable with the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure.
The conclusion of the essay is that both the agreements are partially procedurally acceptable. The agreements can be explained in relation to procedural competence and to the right of action before court. In addition, they seem to be fair waivers from the right to access to court pursuant to Article 6(1) ECHR. However, the agreements are more difficult to reconcile with the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure and its underlying purposes.}},
author = {{Gerhardsson, Linn}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Avtal om att föra annans talan - en processrättslig problematisering}},
year = {{2020}},
}