Den materiella editionens möjligheter och begränsningar
(2020) JURM02 20202Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Tillgång till information är av avgörande betydelse för en parts möjlighet att tillvarata sin rätt i en domstolstvist. Informationsanskaffningen inför en tvist är i huvudsak utomprocessuell och förutsätter frivillig medverkan från informationsinnehavaren. Rättegångsbalkens regler om editionsplikt möjliggör emellertid i viss mån även informationsanskaffning med domstolens hjälp.
Syftet med denna uppsats är att utreda och diskutera vilket rättsligt utrymme för informationsåtkomst den materiella editionsplikten enligt 38 kap. 3 § RB innebär. Den materiella editionens rättsliga möjligheter och begränsningar analyseras i relation till 38 kap 2 § RB om processuell edition samt alternativet att väcka en civilrättslig fullgörelsetalan.... (More) - Tillgång till information är av avgörande betydelse för en parts möjlighet att tillvarata sin rätt i en domstolstvist. Informationsanskaffningen inför en tvist är i huvudsak utomprocessuell och förutsätter frivillig medverkan från informationsinnehavaren. Rättegångsbalkens regler om editionsplikt möjliggör emellertid i viss mån även informationsanskaffning med domstolens hjälp.
Syftet med denna uppsats är att utreda och diskutera vilket rättsligt utrymme för informationsåtkomst den materiella editionsplikten enligt 38 kap. 3 § RB innebär. Den materiella editionens rättsliga möjligheter och begränsningar analyseras i relation till 38 kap 2 § RB om processuell edition samt alternativet att väcka en civilrättslig fullgörelsetalan. Särskilt fokus ägnas vidare åt frågan om i vilken mån parter genom avtal kan styra över editionspliktens omfattning. Framställningen utgår från de traditionella rättskällorna samt ett antal avtalsklausuler om informationsåtkomst vilka utgjort underlag för analysen.
Ett yrkande om materiell edition enligt 38 kap. 3 § RB kan framställas antingen i en fristående rättegång och utgör då en civilrättslig fullgörelsetalan, eller – i likhet med ett yrkande om processuell edition enligt 38 kap. 2 § RB – som rättegångsfråga inom ramen för en pågående process där saken är något annat. De tre instituten har således delvis överlappande tillämpningsområden. Utredningen visar dock att bifallsförutsättningarna skiljer sig åt mellan ett yrkande om processuell edition och ett yrkande om materiell edition. Den processuella editionsplikten är nämligen villkorad av att en rad olika krav är uppfyllda, låt vara att den exakta innebörden av och höjden på dessa i vissa delar förefaller vara oklar. Avseende den materiella editionsplikten uppfattar jag rättsläget så att motsvarande krav på exempelvis den begärda handlingens relevans och editionsföreläggandets proportionalitet inte bör ställas. Den materiella editionsplikten är istället villkorad av att editionssökanden har en civilrättslig rätt gentemot editionssvaranden att utfå eller ta del av den begärda handlingen. Förutsatt att en sådan civilrättslig grund för anspråket föreligger innebär skillnaden mellan bifallsförutsättningarna att det rättsliga utrymmet för informationsåtkomst är större inom ramen för materiell edition enligt 38 kap. 3 § RB än inom ramen för processuell edition enligt 38 kap. 2 § RB. Härav följer att parter, genom att reglera frågan om informationsåtkomst i avtal och därmed skapa en civilrättslig grund för anspråket, kan styra över möjligheten att komma åt information med domstolens hjälp. Med avtalet som grund kan en part då, med stöd av 38 kap. 3 § RB om materiell editionsplikt, komma åt information som annars inte skulle ha varit möjlig att avtvinga motparten. (Less) - Abstract
- Access to information is crucial for a party’s ability to exercise its rights in a litigation. The gathering of information in the event of a legal dispute is mainly done out of court and requires that the holder of information contributes voluntarily. However, Chapter 38 of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure (SCJP) supports, to some extent, gathering of information with the assistance of the court.
The purpose of this essay is to examine and discuss what legal scope for accessing information is inherent within the rule concerning the obligation to produce documents, as regulated in Chapter 38 Section 3 SCJP. The possibilities and limitations of this rule is analyzed in relation to the obligation to produce documents regulated in... (More) - Access to information is crucial for a party’s ability to exercise its rights in a litigation. The gathering of information in the event of a legal dispute is mainly done out of court and requires that the holder of information contributes voluntarily. However, Chapter 38 of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure (SCJP) supports, to some extent, gathering of information with the assistance of the court.
The purpose of this essay is to examine and discuss what legal scope for accessing information is inherent within the rule concerning the obligation to produce documents, as regulated in Chapter 38 Section 3 SCJP. The possibilities and limitations of this rule is analyzed in relation to the obligation to produce documents regulated in Chapter 38 Section 2 SCJP as well as the option to bring an action before court for a specific performance claim. Further, special attention is devoted to the question of to what extent parties, through agreements, can determine the scope of the obligation to produce documents. The composition is based on the traditional sources of Swedish law that together with a number of contractual clauses about access to information has formed the basis for the analysis.
A claim for production of documents under Chapter 38 Section 3 SCJP can be made either in a new separate legal process, constituting a claim for specific performance, or – in the same way as a claim for production of documents under Chapter 38 Section 2 SCJP – as a procedural issue in an ongoing case where the matter is something else. The three institutes thus have partly overlapping scopes of application. However, the investigation shows that the conditions for a court to sustain a claim for production of documents under Chapter 38 Section 3 and Section 2 SCJP differs. The obligation to produce documents under Chapter 38 Section 2 SCJP is dependent on a number of requirements to be met, albeit the exact meaning of these requirements seems to be partly unclear. Regarding the obligation to produce documents under Chapter 38 Section 3 SCJP, my perception is that corresponding requirements, for example concerning the relevance of the requested documents and the proportionality of the order, should not be made. Instead, the application of Chapter 38 Section 3 SCJP presupposes that the plaintiff has a right under civil law, towards the respondent, to obtain or take part of the requested document. Provided that such a right under civil law is present, the difference between the conditions for approval means that the legal scope for access to information is greater within the framework of Chapter 38 Section 3 SCJP than under Chapter 38 Section 2 SCJP. Hence, it follows that parties, by contractually regulating the issue of access to information and thereby creating a sufficient cause of action, can control the possibility of gathering information with the assistance of the court. This means that a party, with a contract as the legal ground, may access information under Chapter 38 Section 3 SCJP that otherwise would not have been possible to exact from the counterparty. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9033905
- author
- Gustavsson, Malin LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- The possibilities and limitations of the obligation to produce documents under Chapter 38 Section 3 Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure
- course
- JURM02 20202
- year
- 2020
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- civilrätt, private law, processrätt, civilprocessrätt, edition, editionsplikt, materiell editionsplikt, avtal om informationsåtkomst
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9033905
- date added to LUP
- 2021-01-25 11:17:36
- date last changed
- 2021-01-25 11:17:36
@misc{9033905,
abstract = {{Access to information is crucial for a party’s ability to exercise its rights in a litigation. The gathering of information in the event of a legal dispute is mainly done out of court and requires that the holder of information contributes voluntarily. However, Chapter 38 of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure (SCJP) supports, to some extent, gathering of information with the assistance of the court.
The purpose of this essay is to examine and discuss what legal scope for accessing information is inherent within the rule concerning the obligation to produce documents, as regulated in Chapter 38 Section 3 SCJP. The possibilities and limitations of this rule is analyzed in relation to the obligation to produce documents regulated in Chapter 38 Section 2 SCJP as well as the option to bring an action before court for a specific performance claim. Further, special attention is devoted to the question of to what extent parties, through agreements, can determine the scope of the obligation to produce documents. The composition is based on the traditional sources of Swedish law that together with a number of contractual clauses about access to information has formed the basis for the analysis.
A claim for production of documents under Chapter 38 Section 3 SCJP can be made either in a new separate legal process, constituting a claim for specific performance, or – in the same way as a claim for production of documents under Chapter 38 Section 2 SCJP – as a procedural issue in an ongoing case where the matter is something else. The three institutes thus have partly overlapping scopes of application. However, the investigation shows that the conditions for a court to sustain a claim for production of documents under Chapter 38 Section 3 and Section 2 SCJP differs. The obligation to produce documents under Chapter 38 Section 2 SCJP is dependent on a number of requirements to be met, albeit the exact meaning of these requirements seems to be partly unclear. Regarding the obligation to produce documents under Chapter 38 Section 3 SCJP, my perception is that corresponding requirements, for example concerning the relevance of the requested documents and the proportionality of the order, should not be made. Instead, the application of Chapter 38 Section 3 SCJP presupposes that the plaintiff has a right under civil law, towards the respondent, to obtain or take part of the requested document. Provided that such a right under civil law is present, the difference between the conditions for approval means that the legal scope for access to information is greater within the framework of Chapter 38 Section 3 SCJP than under Chapter 38 Section 2 SCJP. Hence, it follows that parties, by contractually regulating the issue of access to information and thereby creating a sufficient cause of action, can control the possibility of gathering information with the assistance of the court. This means that a party, with a contract as the legal ground, may access information under Chapter 38 Section 3 SCJP that otherwise would not have been possible to exact from the counterparty.}},
author = {{Gustavsson, Malin}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Den materiella editionens möjligheter och begränsningar}},
year = {{2020}},
}