Rättssäkerhet & processekonomi i konflikt? Om HD:s användande av ”samma saksammanhang” vid taleändringsprövning och vad detta innebär för upprätthållandet av civilprocessens rättsskyddsfunktion
(2022) LAGF03 20221Faculty of Law
Department of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Det civilprocessuella regelverket ska slita tvister mellan enskilda rättssubjekt. Härvid ska regelverket erbjuda enskilda en möjlighet att realisera sitt rättsanspråk och därigenom erhålla rättsskydd. För att kunna göra detta ska regelverket se till att processen genomförs på ett säkert, snabbt och billigt vis. Detta kan också uttryckas som att vissa krav på rättssäkerhet och processekonomi ställs på processen.
I svåra fall, då osäkerhet rörande de civilprocessuella reglernas tillämpning råder, måste dessa lösas genom lagtolkning. Lagtolkningen kommer då att styras av de civilprocessuella reglernas övergripande funktion, dvs. att erbjuda enskilda rättsskydd. Detta innebär att rättssäkerhets- och processekonomiska hänsyn kommer att vara... (More) - Det civilprocessuella regelverket ska slita tvister mellan enskilda rättssubjekt. Härvid ska regelverket erbjuda enskilda en möjlighet att realisera sitt rättsanspråk och därigenom erhålla rättsskydd. För att kunna göra detta ska regelverket se till att processen genomförs på ett säkert, snabbt och billigt vis. Detta kan också uttryckas som att vissa krav på rättssäkerhet och processekonomi ställs på processen.
I svåra fall, då osäkerhet rörande de civilprocessuella reglernas tillämpning råder, måste dessa lösas genom lagtolkning. Lagtolkningen kommer då att styras av de civilprocessuella reglernas övergripande funktion, dvs. att erbjuda enskilda rättsskydd. Detta innebär att rättssäkerhets- och processekonomiska hänsyn kommer att vara centrala vid tolkningen. Emellertid står dessa inte sällan i motsatsförhållande till varandra. En avvägning måste då göras mellan dessa båda hänsyn.
Taleändringsreglerna anses ofta vara bland de viktigaste men även krångligaste reglerna inom civilprocessen. De leder därför ofta till tillämpningsproblem. Ett sådant uppstod i NJA 2021 s. 193 då HD skulle avgöra om en viss taleändring skulle godkännas eller inte. I sin bedömning använde sig HD för första gången av begreppet ”samma saksammanhang”. Detta har ansetts utgöra en avvikelse från lagtextens ordalydelse men även leda till processekonomiska vinster. Syftet med denna uppsats är att undersöka huruvida den avvägning mellan rättssäkerhet och process-ekonomi som användandet av ”samma saksammanhang” innebär är rimlig för att uppnå civilprocessens rättsskyddsfunktion. (Less) - Abstract
- The procedural rules within civil law are supposed to resolve disputes between individual legal entities. To this effect the rules are supposed to offer individuals a possibility to realize their legal claims and thereby receive legal protection. In order to do this the procedural rules need to ensure that civil law cases are conducted in a reliable, quick and inexpensive manner. Another way to express this is to say that civil law cases need to meet certain requirements regarding rule-of-law and procedural efficiency.
In difficult cases, when there is uncertainty regarding the correct application of the procedural rules, these must be resolved through interpretation of the law. The interpretation will then be guided by the overarching... (More) - The procedural rules within civil law are supposed to resolve disputes between individual legal entities. To this effect the rules are supposed to offer individuals a possibility to realize their legal claims and thereby receive legal protection. In order to do this the procedural rules need to ensure that civil law cases are conducted in a reliable, quick and inexpensive manner. Another way to express this is to say that civil law cases need to meet certain requirements regarding rule-of-law and procedural efficiency.
In difficult cases, when there is uncertainty regarding the correct application of the procedural rules, these must be resolved through interpretation of the law. The interpretation will then be guided by the overarching function of the rules, that is to offer individuals legal protection. This means that considerations regarding rule-of-law and procedural efficiency will be central to the interpretation. However, these considerations are often at odds with each other. When that is the case a trade-off between these considerations must be made.
The rules regulating the possibility for a plaintiff to amend his or her claim in a civil action suit are often considered to be among the most important but also most difficult procedural rules within the civil law system. Therefore problems often arise regarding their correct application. Such a problem occurred in the recent case NJA 2021 s. 193 when the Supreme Court of Sweden was to decide whether the plaintiffs were allowed to amend their claim or not. In their judgment the Supreme Court referred to the legal term “samma saksammanhang”/”the same course of events” for the first time. This has been considered a departure from the word of the law but, at the same time, something that results in certain procedural efficiencies. The purpose of this essay is to examine whether or not the trade-off between considerations regarding rule-of-law and procedural efficiency, that the usage of the legal term in question necessitates, is reasonable in order to ensure the primary function of the procedural rules. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9081289
- author
- Strömblad, Joakim LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20221
- year
- 2022
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- processrätt, civil procedure, taleändring, rättssäkerhet, processekonomi
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9081289
- date added to LUP
- 2022-06-28 11:20:49
- date last changed
- 2022-06-28 11:20:49
@misc{9081289,
abstract = {{The procedural rules within civil law are supposed to resolve disputes between individual legal entities. To this effect the rules are supposed to offer individuals a possibility to realize their legal claims and thereby receive legal protection. In order to do this the procedural rules need to ensure that civil law cases are conducted in a reliable, quick and inexpensive manner. Another way to express this is to say that civil law cases need to meet certain requirements regarding rule-of-law and procedural efficiency.
In difficult cases, when there is uncertainty regarding the correct application of the procedural rules, these must be resolved through interpretation of the law. The interpretation will then be guided by the overarching function of the rules, that is to offer individuals legal protection. This means that considerations regarding rule-of-law and procedural efficiency will be central to the interpretation. However, these considerations are often at odds with each other. When that is the case a trade-off between these considerations must be made.
The rules regulating the possibility for a plaintiff to amend his or her claim in a civil action suit are often considered to be among the most important but also most difficult procedural rules within the civil law system. Therefore problems often arise regarding their correct application. Such a problem occurred in the recent case NJA 2021 s. 193 when the Supreme Court of Sweden was to decide whether the plaintiffs were allowed to amend their claim or not. In their judgment the Supreme Court referred to the legal term “samma saksammanhang”/”the same course of events” for the first time. This has been considered a departure from the word of the law but, at the same time, something that results in certain procedural efficiencies. The purpose of this essay is to examine whether or not the trade-off between considerations regarding rule-of-law and procedural efficiency, that the usage of the legal term in question necessitates, is reasonable in order to ensure the primary function of the procedural rules.}},
author = {{Strömblad, Joakim}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Rättssäkerhet & processekonomi i konflikt? Om HD:s användande av ”samma saksammanhang” vid taleändringsprövning och vad detta innebär för upprätthållandet av civilprocessens rättsskyddsfunktion}},
year = {{2022}},
}