Den allmänna avvisningsregeln - Mot bakgrund av civilprocessens huvudsakliga funktioner
(2022) LAGF03 20221Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract
- In Sweden, the production of evidence is free. The legislator has, through the general rejection rule in Chapter 35, Section 7 of the Code of Judicial Procedure given the court the right to reject evidence, even though the Swedish civil procedure is based on principles stating that the dispute belongs to and should be disposed of by the parties. The section contrasts the guiding principles of the civil process and principles, and the rule of law may to some extent give way to an effective trial.
The thesis intends to investigate how the court’s ability to reject evidence in dispositive civil cases according to Chapter 35, Section 7 of the Code of Judicial procedure relates to the function of the civil process, and whether the... (More) - In Sweden, the production of evidence is free. The legislator has, through the general rejection rule in Chapter 35, Section 7 of the Code of Judicial Procedure given the court the right to reject evidence, even though the Swedish civil procedure is based on principles stating that the dispute belongs to and should be disposed of by the parties. The section contrasts the guiding principles of the civil process and principles, and the rule of law may to some extent give way to an effective trial.
The thesis intends to investigate how the court’s ability to reject evidence in dispositive civil cases according to Chapter 35, Section 7 of the Code of Judicial procedure relates to the function of the civil process, and whether the regulation is sufficient to fulfill these purposes. The civil process is discussed in the doctrine and little guidance can be found in law or legislative history.
The thesis illustrates if, and how the general rejection rule in Chapter 35, Section 7 of the Code of Judicial Procedure can be questioned based on the legal protection, conflict resolution and action-directing function. The criticism that is presented is directed primarily at the influence the court has over the trial material and the court’s ability to pre-evaluate evidence. This can be considered to be in conflict with parts of the conflict resolution function that presupposes that the parties control the process. It also sheds light on how the general rule of inadmissibility risks putting the materially correct judgement out of play, which does not interact with the function of legal protection. (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- I svensk rätt råder fri bevisföring. Lagstiftaren har dock genom den allmänna avvisningsregeln i 35 kapitlet 7 § RB gett domstolen rätt att på eget initiativ avvisa bevisning, trots att den svenska civilprocessen bygger på principer om att tvisten ska ägas och disponeras av parterna. Bestämmelsen ställer civilprocessens ledstjärnor och principer mot varandra och rättssäkerheten får i viss mån ge vika för den effektiva rättegången.
Uppsatsens ämnar utreda hur domstolens möjlighet att avvisa bevisning i dispositiva tvistemål enligt 35 kap. 7 § RB förhåller sig till civilprocessens funktioner samt om regleringen är tillräcklig för att uppfylla dessa ändamål. Civilprocessens funktioner är omdiskuterade i doktrin och ytterst lite vägledning... (More) - I svensk rätt råder fri bevisföring. Lagstiftaren har dock genom den allmänna avvisningsregeln i 35 kapitlet 7 § RB gett domstolen rätt att på eget initiativ avvisa bevisning, trots att den svenska civilprocessen bygger på principer om att tvisten ska ägas och disponeras av parterna. Bestämmelsen ställer civilprocessens ledstjärnor och principer mot varandra och rättssäkerheten får i viss mån ge vika för den effektiva rättegången.
Uppsatsens ämnar utreda hur domstolens möjlighet att avvisa bevisning i dispositiva tvistemål enligt 35 kap. 7 § RB förhåller sig till civilprocessens funktioner samt om regleringen är tillräcklig för att uppfylla dessa ändamål. Civilprocessens funktioner är omdiskuterade i doktrin och ytterst lite vägledning går att finna i lag och förarbeten.
Uppsatsen åskådliggör om och hur den allmänna avvisningsregeln i 35 kap. 7 § RB kan ifrågasättas utifrån den rättsskyddande, konfliktlösande och handlingsdirigerande funktionen. Kritiken som framställs riktas främst mot det inflytande domstolen får över processmaterialet samt domstolens möjlighet att förhandsvärdera bevisning. Detta strider mot de delar av den konfliktlösande funktionen som förutsätter att parterna kontrollerar processen. Vidare belyses hur den allmänna avvisnings regeln riskerar att sätta den materiellt riktiga domen ur spel, vilket inte samspelar med funktionen om rättsskydd. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9080961
- author
- Ivarsson, Isabelle LU
- supervisor
-
- Karol Nowak LU
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20221
- year
- 2022
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Processrätt, rättsvetenskap
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9080961
- date added to LUP
- 2022-06-28 09:34:07
- date last changed
- 2022-06-28 09:34:07
@misc{9080961,
abstract = {{In Sweden, the production of evidence is free. The legislator has, through the general rejection rule in Chapter 35, Section 7 of the Code of Judicial Procedure given the court the right to reject evidence, even though the Swedish civil procedure is based on principles stating that the dispute belongs to and should be disposed of by the parties. The section contrasts the guiding principles of the civil process and principles, and the rule of law may to some extent give way to an effective trial.
The thesis intends to investigate how the court’s ability to reject evidence in dispositive civil cases according to Chapter 35, Section 7 of the Code of Judicial procedure relates to the function of the civil process, and whether the regulation is sufficient to fulfill these purposes. The civil process is discussed in the doctrine and little guidance can be found in law or legislative history.
The thesis illustrates if, and how the general rejection rule in Chapter 35, Section 7 of the Code of Judicial Procedure can be questioned based on the legal protection, conflict resolution and action-directing function. The criticism that is presented is directed primarily at the influence the court has over the trial material and the court’s ability to pre-evaluate evidence. This can be considered to be in conflict with parts of the conflict resolution function that presupposes that the parties control the process. It also sheds light on how the general rule of inadmissibility risks putting the materially correct judgement out of play, which does not interact with the function of legal protection.}},
author = {{Ivarsson, Isabelle}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Den allmänna avvisningsregeln - Mot bakgrund av civilprocessens huvudsakliga funktioner}},
year = {{2022}},
}