Officialprincipen i asylärenden, Migrationsverkets och migrationsdomstolarnas utredningsansvar
(2022) JURM02 20221Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Uppsatsens övergripande syfte är att utreda såväl innebörden som omfattningen av Migrationsverkets och migrationsdomstolarnas utredningsansvar i asylärenden/ mål enligt 23 § FL respektive 8 § FPL. För att kunna ge en tillfredsställande bild av utredningsansvaret studeras dessutom, om än mer kortfattat, bevisreglerna i asylärenden/mål.
Uppsatsen ger inledningsvis en introduktion till regleringen om asyl.
Därefter riktas blicken mot myndigheternas centrala roll och funktion. Avsikten är att klarlägga om det finns någon skillnad i omfattningen av Migrationsverkets och migrationsdomstolarnas utredningsansvar, beroende på deras olika centrala roller i asylprocessen.
Fokus flyttas sedan till utredningsansvarets innebörd enligt 23 § FL... (More) - Uppsatsens övergripande syfte är att utreda såväl innebörden som omfattningen av Migrationsverkets och migrationsdomstolarnas utredningsansvar i asylärenden/ mål enligt 23 § FL respektive 8 § FPL. För att kunna ge en tillfredsställande bild av utredningsansvaret studeras dessutom, om än mer kortfattat, bevisreglerna i asylärenden/mål.
Uppsatsen ger inledningsvis en introduktion till regleringen om asyl.
Därefter riktas blicken mot myndigheternas centrala roll och funktion. Avsikten är att klarlägga om det finns någon skillnad i omfattningen av Migrationsverkets och migrationsdomstolarnas utredningsansvar, beroende på deras olika centrala roller i asylprocessen.
Fokus flyttas sedan till utredningsansvarets innebörd enligt 23 § FL respektive 8 § FPL. En aspekt som behandlas är hanteringen av utredningsbrister. Förvaltningsdomaren har vid en eventuell utredningsbrist tre handlingsalternativ att välja mellan. Ett alternativ är att återförvisa målet till underinstansen med ledning av instansordningens princip. En andra lösning är att processleda parterna så att de själva får inkomma med ytterligare utredning. En tredje möjlighet är att domstolen själv (ex officio) vidtar utredningsåtgärder. Frågan är hur migrationsdomstolarna bör hantera utredningsbrister i asylprocessen givet sin roll och de intressen som gör sig särskilt gällande i asylprocessen.
Uppsatsen behandlar vidare utredningsansvarets omfattning. Diskussion förs kring vilka faktorer som styr utredningsansvaret generellt i förvaltningsmål och speciellt i asylmål. Exempelvis analyseras frågan om beviskravet i sig styr omfattningen av utredningsansvaret. Med ledning av om ett utredningsansvar sträcker sig ”kort” eller ”långt”, kan möjligtvis besvaras vad utredningsansvaret i asylmål/ ärenden faktiskt innebär i praktiken.
Frågeställningarnas slutsatser är förenklat följande: Först och främst får det anses stå klart att Migrationsverkets och migrationsdomstolarnas utredningsansvar sträcker sig lika långt. Min ståndpunkt är att migrationsdomstolarna bör ta utgångspunkt i återförvisning när domstolen hanterar utredningsbrister. Det starka skyddsintresset (att värna den enskildes liv och hälsa), principen om non-refoulement och svårigheten för asylsökande att föra in bevisning i ärenden/ mål, genererar ett relativt långtgående utredningsansvar i asylärenden/ mål. Det ställs således höga krav på en materiell riktig utgång. Därför krävs ett tillförlitligt beslutsunderlag. Det ställer i sig krav på att det inte får finnas något större osäkerhetsmoment gällande vad den asylsökande riskerar vid ett eventuellt återvändande till sitt hemland. (Less) - Abstract
- The overall purpose of the thesis is to investigate the meaning and scope of the Swedish Migration Agency's and the Migration Courts' investigative responsibility in asylum cases /cases according to § 23 FL and § 8 FPL. In order to be able to give a satisfying picture of the investigative responsibility, the rules of evidence in asylum cases /cases are also studied, but more briefly.
The essay initially provides an introduction to the regulation on asylum.
The focus is then directed towards the central role and function of the authorities. The intention is to clarify whether there is any difference in the scope of the Swedish Migration Agency's and the Migration Courts' investigative responsibilities, depending on their different... (More) - The overall purpose of the thesis is to investigate the meaning and scope of the Swedish Migration Agency's and the Migration Courts' investigative responsibility in asylum cases /cases according to § 23 FL and § 8 FPL. In order to be able to give a satisfying picture of the investigative responsibility, the rules of evidence in asylum cases /cases are also studied, but more briefly.
The essay initially provides an introduction to the regulation on asylum.
The focus is then directed towards the central role and function of the authorities. The intention is to clarify whether there is any difference in the scope of the Swedish Migration Agency's and the Migration Courts' investigative responsibilities, depending on their different central roles in the asylum process.
The focus is then shifted to the meaning of investigative responsibility in accordance with § 23 FL and § 8 FPL. One aspect that is addressed is the management of investigative shortcomings. In the event of a lack of investigation, the administrative judge has three options to choose between. An alternative is to refer the case back to the lower instance on the basis of the principle of the rules of procedure. Another solution is to process the parties so that they themselves can submit a further investigation. A third possibility is that the court itself (ex officio) takes investigative measures. The question is how the Migration Courts should deal with investigative shortcomings in the asylum process, given their role and the interests that are particularly relevant in the asylum process.
The thesis further deals with the scope of the investigative responsibility. Discussion is held about which factors govern the investigative responsibility in general in administrative cases, and especially in asylum cases. For example, the question of whether the burden of proof in itself governs the scope of the investigative responsibility is analyzed. Depending on whether an investigative responsibility extends "short" or "long", it is possible to answer what the investigative responsibility in asylum cases / cases actually means in practice.
The main conclusions are as follow: First and foremost, it must be considered clear that the Migration Agency's and the Migration Courts' investigative responsibilities extend equally far. My position is that the Migration Courts should take its starting point in deportation when the court deals with investigative shortcomings. The strong interest in protection (to safeguard the individual's life and health), the principle of non-refoulement and the difficulty for asylum seekers to submit evidence in cases / cases, generate a relatively far-reaching investigative responsibility in asylum seekers / cases. Thus, high demands are placed on a materially correct output. Therefore, a reliable basis for decision-making is required. This in (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9080662
- author
- Fransson, Linda LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- The official principle in asylum matters, the Migration Board's and the migration courts' investigative responsibility
- course
- JURM02 20221
- year
- 2022
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- Förvaltningsrätt, officialprincipen, 8 § FPL
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9080662
- date added to LUP
- 2022-06-18 10:10:55
- date last changed
- 2022-06-18 10:10:55
@misc{9080662,
abstract = {{The overall purpose of the thesis is to investigate the meaning and scope of the Swedish Migration Agency's and the Migration Courts' investigative responsibility in asylum cases /cases according to § 23 FL and § 8 FPL. In order to be able to give a satisfying picture of the investigative responsibility, the rules of evidence in asylum cases /cases are also studied, but more briefly.
The essay initially provides an introduction to the regulation on asylum.
The focus is then directed towards the central role and function of the authorities. The intention is to clarify whether there is any difference in the scope of the Swedish Migration Agency's and the Migration Courts' investigative responsibilities, depending on their different central roles in the asylum process.
The focus is then shifted to the meaning of investigative responsibility in accordance with § 23 FL and § 8 FPL. One aspect that is addressed is the management of investigative shortcomings. In the event of a lack of investigation, the administrative judge has three options to choose between. An alternative is to refer the case back to the lower instance on the basis of the principle of the rules of procedure. Another solution is to process the parties so that they themselves can submit a further investigation. A third possibility is that the court itself (ex officio) takes investigative measures. The question is how the Migration Courts should deal with investigative shortcomings in the asylum process, given their role and the interests that are particularly relevant in the asylum process.
The thesis further deals with the scope of the investigative responsibility. Discussion is held about which factors govern the investigative responsibility in general in administrative cases, and especially in asylum cases. For example, the question of whether the burden of proof in itself governs the scope of the investigative responsibility is analyzed. Depending on whether an investigative responsibility extends "short" or "long", it is possible to answer what the investigative responsibility in asylum cases / cases actually means in practice.
The main conclusions are as follow: First and foremost, it must be considered clear that the Migration Agency's and the Migration Courts' investigative responsibilities extend equally far. My position is that the Migration Courts should take its starting point in deportation when the court deals with investigative shortcomings. The strong interest in protection (to safeguard the individual's life and health), the principle of non-refoulement and the difficulty for asylum seekers to submit evidence in cases / cases, generate a relatively far-reaching investigative responsibility in asylum seekers / cases. Thus, high demands are placed on a materially correct output. Therefore, a reliable basis for decision-making is required. This in}},
author = {{Fransson, Linda}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Officialprincipen i asylärenden, Migrationsverkets och migrationsdomstolarnas utredningsansvar}},
year = {{2022}},
}