Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Felaktig myndighetsinformation och försummad service - om det allmännas skadeståndsansvar vid upplysningar och råd

Lindkvist, Alexander LU (2020) LAGF03 20202
Faculty of Law
Department of Law
Abstract
This thesis is about the Swedish public bodies liability when they provide information and advice to individuals. Historically, liability for negligent exercise of public authority has been considered to be contrary to public sovereignty and the principle 'the king can do no wrong'. It was not until the creation of the Tort Liability Act (TLA) in 1972 that a liability when public bodies cause damage, through negligent exercise of public authority, was introduced. Rules regarding liability for incorrect authority information existed in a limited form in the 1972 TLA Since then the responsibility has been increased, partly by the duty to provide service in The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), partly through reforms of TLA, the most recent... (More)
This thesis is about the Swedish public bodies liability when they provide information and advice to individuals. Historically, liability for negligent exercise of public authority has been considered to be contrary to public sovereignty and the principle 'the king can do no wrong'. It was not until the creation of the Tort Liability Act (TLA) in 1972 that a liability when public bodies cause damage, through negligent exercise of public authority, was introduced. Rules regarding liability for incorrect authority information existed in a limited form in the 1972 TLA Since then the responsibility has been increased, partly by the duty to provide service in The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), partly through reforms of TLA, the most recent in 1998 with the introduction of 3:3 TLA.

The rules that primarily govern the liability of public bodies regarding incorrect authority information are 3:2 and 3:3 TLA. 3:2 TLA is a general rule that covers personal-, property-, and pure economic damage, caused by negligence, “in relation to exercise of public authority”. 3:3 TLA is more specialized and statutes a liability for pure economic damage as a result of incorrect information or advice. No connection with the exercise of public authority is necessary, but for the public bodies to be liable there must be "special reasons". In this thesis, 3:2 and 3:3 TLA is investigated with regard to their restrictive necessary conditions as well as their connection with the duty to provide service in 6 § APA. The duty to provide service is investigated with particular focus on the extent to which liability may arise as a result of a failure to provide information. Does the duty to provide service create a duty of action in relation to 3:2 or 3:3 TLA?

In practice from the Supreme Court (SC), the restrictive necessary condition “in relation to exercise of public authority” has been given the meaning that some sort of link between the information and a case at the authority providing the incorrect information is required for liability to arise. The meaning given to the restrictive necessary condition by the SC was one of the reasons why 3:3 TLA was introduced, the legislator thought it should be possible to obtain indemnity due to incorrect authority information without a connection to a case. However, when 3:3 TLA was introduced, the scope of the rule was limited by the restrictive necessary condition: "if with regards to the circumstances there are special reasons". In assessing whether there are special reasons or not, all relevant circumstances must be taken into account. The preparatory work states examples such as: the connection between the information and the authority's field of activity, how the information was provided, whether it was precise or vague and what the information is to be used for in relation to what the authority official giving the information realised about the intended use. In most cases the most important circumstance should be whether the individual has had reason to rely on the information or not. The restrictive necessary condition "special reasons" has been criticized since the introduction of 3:3 TLA. However, the SC has passed judgement on the condition in a 2017 case and seems to have accepted what is stated about it in the preparatory work.

The preparatory work of 3:3 TLA define the term "incorrect" as information that is "objectively not correct". This definition does not cover neither incomplete nor misleading information, a statement or advice has to be actually provided in order for it to be objectively incorrect. This also means that liability for pure omission is not possible in 3:3 TLA. Incomplete information could possibly result in liability, but the legal situation is unclear. Therefore, the duty to provide service in APA cannot be seen as creating a duty of action in relation to 3:3 TLA.

In 3:2 TLA, liability due to neglected service is possible. The duty to provide service in APA may create a duty of action and if the authority doesn ́t inform or advise, it may be liable due to omission. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
Uppsatsen handlar om det allmännas ansvar när myndigheter på olika sätt lämnar upplysningar och råd till enskilda. Historiskt har ett skadeståndsansvar för det allmännas offentliga verksamhet ansetts strida mot statssuveräniteten och principen ”the king can do no wrong”. Det var inte förrän vid skadeståndslagens (SkL) tillkomst år 1972 som det infördes ett ansvar när det allmänna orsakar skada i samband med myndighetsutövning. Regler om skadeståndsansvar för felaktig myndighetsinformation fanns i begränsad form redan i 1972 års SkL, sedan dess har ansvaret skärpts dels genom en utökad serviceskyldighet i förvaltningslagen (FL), dels genom ett antal reformer av SkL, den senaste år 1998 med införandet av 3:3 SkL.

Reglerna som primärt... (More)
Uppsatsen handlar om det allmännas ansvar när myndigheter på olika sätt lämnar upplysningar och råd till enskilda. Historiskt har ett skadeståndsansvar för det allmännas offentliga verksamhet ansetts strida mot statssuveräniteten och principen ”the king can do no wrong”. Det var inte förrän vid skadeståndslagens (SkL) tillkomst år 1972 som det infördes ett ansvar när det allmänna orsakar skada i samband med myndighetsutövning. Regler om skadeståndsansvar för felaktig myndighetsinformation fanns i begränsad form redan i 1972 års SkL, sedan dess har ansvaret skärpts dels genom en utökad serviceskyldighet i förvaltningslagen (FL), dels genom ett antal reformer av SkL, den senaste år 1998 med införandet av 3:3 SkL.

Reglerna som primärt reglerar det allmännas ansvar vid felaktig myndighetsinformation är 3:2 och 3:3 SkL. 3:2 SkL är en allmän regel som omfattar person-, sak- och ren förmögenhetsskada, vållad genom fel eller försummelse av det allmänna, ”vid” myndighetsutövning. 3:3 SkL är mer specialiserad och stadgar ett ansvar för ren förmögenhetsskada till följd av felaktiga upplysningar eller råd. Det krävs inget samband med myndighetsutövning men det måste föreligga ”särskilda skäl” för att ansvar ska uppstå. I arbetet undersöks 3:2 och 3:3 SkL utifrån deras respektive begränsande rekvisit. Reglernas relation till serviceskyldigheten i 6 § FL utreds också med särskilt fokus på i vilken mån ansvar kan uppstå till följd av en underlåtenhet att informera. Skapar serviceskyldigheten en handlingsplikt i förhållande till 3:2 eller 3:3 SkL?

I praxis har, såvitt avser felaktig information, rekvisitet ”vid myndighetsutövning” i princip fått betydelsen att det krävs ett samband mellan informationen och ett ärende hos myndigheten för att ansvar ska uppstå. Rekvisitets restriktiva tillämpning var en av anledningarna till att 3:3 SkL infördes, det skulle bli möjligt att få skadestånd för felaktig information även utan ärendeanknytning. Vid införandet av 3:3 SkL begränsades dock även denna regels räckvidd genom rekvisitet ”om det med hänsyn till omständigheterna finns särskilda skäl.” Vid bedömningen av om det finns särskilda skäl ska alla relevanta omständigheter beaktas, sådana är enligt motiven t.ex. kopplingen mellan upplysningen och myndighetens verksamhetsområde, hur uppgiften lämnades, om den var preciserad eller ej och vad uppgiften ska användas till och vad uppgiftslämnaren insåg om detta. Avgörande i de flest fall torde vara om den enskilde haft skäl att förlita sig på informationen. Rekvisitet ”särskilda skäl” har blivit kritiserat sedan införandet av 3:3 SkL. Högsta Domstolen har dock prövat rekvisitet år 2017 och tycks i stort ha godtagit det som anförs i förarbetena.

I motiven till 3:3 SkL definieras begreppet ”felaktig” som information som ”objektivt sett inte är korrekt”. Definitionen får följden att varken ofullständig eller vilseledande information kan vara skadeståndsgrundande, det krävs att en uppgift eller ett råd faktiskt har lämnats för att den ska vara objektivt oriktig. Det innebär också att ansvar för ren underlåtenhet inte är aktuellt i 3:3 SkL, eventuellt kan ofullständiga uppgifter grunda ansvar men rättsläget är oklart. Serviceplikten i FL kan därmed inte anses skapa en handlingsplikt i förhållande till 3:3 SkL.

I 3:2 SkL är skadeståndsansvar till följd av försummad service möjligt. Serviceskyldigheten i FL kan skapa en handlingsplikt och underlåter myndigheten att informera eller ge råd så kan skadeståndsskyldighet aktualiseras. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Lindkvist, Alexander LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20202
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
skadeståndsrätt, förvaltningsrätt, administrative law, serviceskyldighet, underlåtenhet, felaktig myndighetsinformation
language
Swedish
id
9034441
date added to LUP
2021-02-09 11:40:52
date last changed
2021-02-09 11:40:52
@misc{9034441,
  abstract     = {{This thesis is about the Swedish public bodies liability when they provide information and advice to individuals. Historically, liability for negligent exercise of public authority has been considered to be contrary to public sovereignty and the principle 'the king can do no wrong'. It was not until the creation of the Tort Liability Act (TLA) in 1972 that a liability when public bodies cause damage, through negligent exercise of public authority, was introduced. Rules regarding liability for incorrect authority information existed in a limited form in the 1972 TLA Since then the responsibility has been increased, partly by the duty to provide service in The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), partly through reforms of TLA, the most recent in 1998 with the introduction of 3:3 TLA.

The rules that primarily govern the liability of public bodies regarding incorrect authority information are 3:2 and 3:3 TLA. 3:2 TLA is a general rule that covers personal-, property-, and pure economic damage, caused by negligence, “in relation to exercise of public authority”. 3:3 TLA is more specialized and statutes a liability for pure economic damage as a result of incorrect information or advice. No connection with the exercise of public authority is necessary, but for the public bodies to be liable there must be "special reasons". In this thesis, 3:2 and 3:3 TLA is investigated with regard to their restrictive necessary conditions as well as their connection with the duty to provide service in 6 § APA. The duty to provide service is investigated with particular focus on the extent to which liability may arise as a result of a failure to provide information. Does the duty to provide service create a duty of action in relation to 3:2 or 3:3 TLA?

In practice from the Supreme Court (SC), the restrictive necessary condition “in relation to exercise of public authority” has been given the meaning that some sort of link between the information and a case at the authority providing the incorrect information is required for liability to arise. The meaning given to the restrictive necessary condition by the SC was one of the reasons why 3:3 TLA was introduced, the legislator thought it should be possible to obtain indemnity due to incorrect authority information without a connection to a case. However, when 3:3 TLA was introduced, the scope of the rule was limited by the restrictive necessary condition: "if with regards to the circumstances there are special reasons". In assessing whether there are special reasons or not, all relevant circumstances must be taken into account. The preparatory work states examples such as: the connection between the information and the authority's field of activity, how the information was provided, whether it was precise or vague and what the information is to be used for in relation to what the authority official giving the information realised about the intended use. In most cases the most important circumstance should be whether the individual has had reason to rely on the information or not. The restrictive necessary condition "special reasons" has been criticized since the introduction of 3:3 TLA. However, the SC has passed judgement on the condition in a 2017 case and seems to have accepted what is stated about it in the preparatory work.

The preparatory work of 3:3 TLA define the term "incorrect" as information that is "objectively not correct". This definition does not cover neither incomplete nor misleading information, a statement or advice has to be actually provided in order for it to be objectively incorrect. This also means that liability for pure omission is not possible in 3:3 TLA. Incomplete information could possibly result in liability, but the legal situation is unclear. Therefore, the duty to provide service in APA cannot be seen as creating a duty of action in relation to 3:3 TLA.

In 3:2 TLA, liability due to neglected service is possible. The duty to provide service in APA may create a duty of action and if the authority doesn ́t inform or advise, it may be liable due to omission.}},
  author       = {{Lindkvist, Alexander}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Felaktig myndighetsinformation och försummad service - om det allmännas skadeståndsansvar vid upplysningar och råd}},
  year         = {{2020}},
}