Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Finns en rättssäker materiell processledning? - En undersökning om hur en omfattande materiell processledning förhåller sig till artikel 6 EKMR

Franzén, Michelle LU (2023) LAGF03 20231
Faculty of Law
Department of Law
Abstract
According to the provisions of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure, the judge has a right as well as an obligation to direct the proceedings in civil cases. This means, inter alia, that the judge must endeavor to remedy ambiguities and incompleteness in the parties' submissions by means of remarks and questions. The scope of the judge’s directions of the proceedings in civil cases has been a highly debated issue. Doctrine argues both in favor of and against an extensive direction, with several different aspects being raised in support of the arguments.

In his direction of the proceedings, the judge is bound by certain procedural safeguards. This investigation focuses on two of these, the impartiality of the judge and the principle of... (More)
According to the provisions of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure, the judge has a right as well as an obligation to direct the proceedings in civil cases. This means, inter alia, that the judge must endeavor to remedy ambiguities and incompleteness in the parties' submissions by means of remarks and questions. The scope of the judge’s directions of the proceedings in civil cases has been a highly debated issue. Doctrine argues both in favor of and against an extensive direction, with several different aspects being raised in support of the arguments.

In his direction of the proceedings, the judge is bound by certain procedural safeguards. This investigation focuses on two of these, the impartiality of the judge and the principle of “equality of arms” as expressed in Article 6(1) ECHR. It is of the utmost importance that the judge both is impartial and is perceived to be impartial. In addition, it is important that one party is not favored at the expense of the other because of the judge’s actions. This study finds that under current law, extensive direction of the proceedings is required in two situations in particular. Firstly, when one of the parties has no or a less skillful counsel, and secondly, when mandatory legislation is invoked.

After a critical analysis of the two cases, considering the arguments put forward in both the doctrine and the legislative history, the conclusions can be drawn that the judge's impartiality is to some extent at risk and that the principle of “equality of arms” is only partially upheld. The reason why the judge's impartiality may be compromised is that it is sufficient under Article 6(1) ECHR for the judge to be perceived as biased. The more the judge is involved in the case, the greater the risk of this perception emerging. At the same time, the subjective impartiality of the judge as defined in ECHR does not seem to be affected by the extent of the judge’s direction of the proceedings. Regarding the principle of “equality of arms”, extensive direction seems in many cases to fulfil the purpose of the principle. However, there is a risk that, in cases concerning mandatory legislation, the judge goes so far in wanting to help the weaker party that the stronger party is put at a disadvantage. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
Enligt bestämmelser i RB åläggs domaren en rätt såväl som skyldighet att i dispositiva tvistemål utöva materiell processledning. Detta innebär bland annat att domaren genom påpekanden och frågor ska försöka avhjälpa otydligheter och ofullständigheter i parternas framställningar. Omfattningen av den materiella processledningen i dispositiva tvistemål har varit en mycket omdebatterad fråga. I doktrin förs både resonemang för och mot en omfattande materiell processledning med flera olika aspekter som lyfts till stöd för argumenten.

I sitt utövande av den materiella processledningen är domaren bunden av vissa rättssäkerhetsprinciper. Denna utredning tar fäste vid två av dessa, domarens opartiskhet och principen om parternas likställdhet,... (More)
Enligt bestämmelser i RB åläggs domaren en rätt såväl som skyldighet att i dispositiva tvistemål utöva materiell processledning. Detta innebär bland annat att domaren genom påpekanden och frågor ska försöka avhjälpa otydligheter och ofullständigheter i parternas framställningar. Omfattningen av den materiella processledningen i dispositiva tvistemål har varit en mycket omdebatterad fråga. I doktrin förs både resonemang för och mot en omfattande materiell processledning med flera olika aspekter som lyfts till stöd för argumenten.

I sitt utövande av den materiella processledningen är domaren bunden av vissa rättssäkerhetsprinciper. Denna utredning tar fäste vid två av dessa, domarens opartiskhet och principen om parternas likställdhet, som båda framkommer i artikel 6.1 EKMR. Det är av största vikt att domaren både är och uppfattas som opartisk. Därtill är det betydelsefullt att den ena parten inte gynnas på den andra partens bekostnad som ett resultat av den materiella processledningen. Denna utredning finner att det enligt gällande rätt framför allt är i två situationer som omfattande materiell processledning påkallas. Dels då ena parten saknar ombud eller har ett mindre skickligt sådant, dels när tvingande lagstiftning görs gällande.

Efter en kritisk analys av de båda fallen med beaktande av de resonemang som framförts i doktrin och förarbetena kan slutsatserna dras att domarens opartiskhet i viss mån riskerar att eftersättas, och att principen om parternas likställdhet enbart delvis upprätthålls. Anledningen till att domarens opartiskhet riskerar att äventyras är eftersom artikel 6.1 EKMR även innefattar ett förbud mot att domaren uppfattas som partisk. Desto mer domaren engagerar sig i målet, ju större är risken att denna uppfattning framkommer. Samtidigt synes domarens subjektiva partiskhet i EKMR:s mening inte påverkas i någon större utsträckning av processledningens omfattning. Avseende principen om parternas likställdhet verkar en omfattande materiell processledning i många fall tillgodose principens ändamål, inte minst då ena parten saknar ombud. Det finns däremot en risk för att domaren i fall av tvingande lagstiftning går så pass långt i sitt försök att hjälpa den svagare parten att den starkare parten försätts i ett underläge. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Franzén, Michelle LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20231
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
processrätt, materiell processledning, opartiskhet, likställdhet, EKMR, civilprocessrätt
language
Swedish
id
9116152
date added to LUP
2023-06-29 09:39:39
date last changed
2023-06-29 09:39:39
@misc{9116152,
  abstract     = {{According to the provisions of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure, the judge has a right as well as an obligation to direct the proceedings in civil cases. This means, inter alia, that the judge must endeavor to remedy ambiguities and incompleteness in the parties' submissions by means of remarks and questions. The scope of the judge’s directions of the proceedings in civil cases has been a highly debated issue. Doctrine argues both in favor of and against an extensive direction, with several different aspects being raised in support of the arguments.

In his direction of the proceedings, the judge is bound by certain procedural safeguards. This investigation focuses on two of these, the impartiality of the judge and the principle of “equality of arms” as expressed in Article 6(1) ECHR. It is of the utmost importance that the judge both is impartial and is perceived to be impartial. In addition, it is important that one party is not favored at the expense of the other because of the judge’s actions. This study finds that under current law, extensive direction of the proceedings is required in two situations in particular. Firstly, when one of the parties has no or a less skillful counsel, and secondly, when mandatory legislation is invoked.

After a critical analysis of the two cases, considering the arguments put forward in both the doctrine and the legislative history, the conclusions can be drawn that the judge's impartiality is to some extent at risk and that the principle of “equality of arms” is only partially upheld. The reason why the judge's impartiality may be compromised is that it is sufficient under Article 6(1) ECHR for the judge to be perceived as biased. The more the judge is involved in the case, the greater the risk of this perception emerging. At the same time, the subjective impartiality of the judge as defined in ECHR does not seem to be affected by the extent of the judge’s direction of the proceedings. Regarding the principle of “equality of arms”, extensive direction seems in many cases to fulfil the purpose of the principle. However, there is a risk that, in cases concerning mandatory legislation, the judge goes so far in wanting to help the weaker party that the stronger party is put at a disadvantage.}},
  author       = {{Franzén, Michelle}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Finns en rättssäker materiell processledning? - En undersökning om hur en omfattande materiell processledning förhåller sig till artikel 6 EKMR}},
  year         = {{2023}},
}