Avgiftsskyldig för brister i djurhållningen? En analys av mål om avgift för offentlig kontroll på djurskyddsområdet
(2023) LAGF03 20231Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Inom ramen för den offentlig förvaltningen utövar kontrollmyndigheter tillsyn över ett flertal olika verksamheten på vitt skilda områden. Ett exempel är djurskyddsområdet. Offentlig kontroll över efterlevnaden av djurskyddslagstiftningen är reglerad på EU-nivå och tar i första hand sikte på verksamheter som bedrivs i större omfattning. Dessa verksamheter ska genom avgifter finansiera den offentliga kontrollverksamheten.
I svensk rätt har vissa regler om offentlig kontroll gjorts tillämpliga även på privatpersoner som har husdjur, med följden att privatpersoner också kan behöva betala avgift. Det gäller bl.a. i de fall då kontrollmyndigheten fått en anmälan om att personens djurhållning är bristfällig. För att säkerställa... (More) - Inom ramen för den offentlig förvaltningen utövar kontrollmyndigheter tillsyn över ett flertal olika verksamheten på vitt skilda områden. Ett exempel är djurskyddsområdet. Offentlig kontroll över efterlevnaden av djurskyddslagstiftningen är reglerad på EU-nivå och tar i första hand sikte på verksamheter som bedrivs i större omfattning. Dessa verksamheter ska genom avgifter finansiera den offentliga kontrollverksamheten.
I svensk rätt har vissa regler om offentlig kontroll gjorts tillämpliga även på privatpersoner som har husdjur, med följden att privatpersoner också kan behöva betala avgift. Det gäller bl.a. i de fall då kontrollmyndigheten fått en anmälan om att personens djurhållning är bristfällig. För att säkerställa djurskyddslagstiftningens efterkommande agerar myndigheterna på anmälningarna genom att företa kontroll av privatpersonens djurhållning. Om det visar sig att brister i djurhållningen föreligger, blir personen avgiftsskyldig för den kostnad myndigheten haft för kontrollen. Vad som utgör en brist eller inte bestäms av vilken reglering som är tillämplig. För hållande av hund och katt finns exempelvis särskild reglering.
Med utgångspunkt i avgiftens karaktärsdrag av en tvångspålaga undersöks i uppsatsen vilket beviskrav domstolarna tillämpar i mål om avgift för offentlig kontroll där privatpersoner påstås brista i sin djurhållning.
Förvaltningsprocessen erbjuder inga raka svar på frågan, då det inte kan sägas finnas något generellt tillämpligt beviskrav. Ledning får tas från annat håll. Arbetets sammanfattande slutsats synes dock närmast bekräfta vad vi redan visste om beviskrav i förvaltningsprocessen: rättsläget är oklart. Vissa påpekanden och resonemang gör sig dock gällande. (Less) - Abstract
- The public authorities in Sweden are responsible for official control performed to ensure the application of rules on animal health and welfare. The regulation derives from legislation at the European Parliament and mainly aims to regulate corporations’ compliance with the Animal Welfare Act. The legislation also regulates the financing of official control conducted by the authorities. Those who keep animals for a living are to pay fees for the official control that the authorities undertake.
Parts of the regulation have been made applicable for private individuals who keep domestic animals as well, meaning that those individuals can be made to pay fees for official control. This applies on a national level in Sweden. However, only... (More) - The public authorities in Sweden are responsible for official control performed to ensure the application of rules on animal health and welfare. The regulation derives from legislation at the European Parliament and mainly aims to regulate corporations’ compliance with the Animal Welfare Act. The legislation also regulates the financing of official control conducted by the authorities. Those who keep animals for a living are to pay fees for the official control that the authorities undertake.
Parts of the regulation have been made applicable for private individuals who keep domestic animals as well, meaning that those individuals can be made to pay fees for official control. This applies on a national level in Sweden. However, only certain situations lead to private individuals having to pay fees for official control. One such situation is when the supervisory body has been alerted through a complaint by someone from the public that the private individual’s keeping of animals does not meet the requirements of the Animal Welfare Act. The complaint entails the supervisory body to undertake an inspection as official control of the individual. If during the control the supervisory body finds that the individual does in fact not comply with the Animal Welfare Act, the supervisory body is to impose a fee for the control.
Given that the fee is mandatory for the individual and that it derives from exercise of authority, the question posed in this essay is what standard of proof the court of law apply in legal cases regarding fees for official control, when the private individual has opposed the duty to pay the fee. At what point is the requirement for adequate evidence met?
Public administrative law does not hold the answers for the question asked, as there is no general standard of proof within this field of law. One has to search elsewhere for answers. Nevertheless, the conclusions drawn from the essay merely seems to validate what is already known about evidential requirements in public administrative law: the legal position on the matter is uncertain. A few suggestions and considerations can, however, be pointed out. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9116169
- author
- Nyman, Emma LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20231
- year
- 2023
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- förvaltningsrätt, förvaltningsprocessrätt, beviskrav
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9116169
- date added to LUP
- 2023-06-29 13:32:04
- date last changed
- 2023-06-29 13:32:47
@misc{9116169,
abstract = {{The public authorities in Sweden are responsible for official control performed to ensure the application of rules on animal health and welfare. The regulation derives from legislation at the European Parliament and mainly aims to regulate corporations’ compliance with the Animal Welfare Act. The legislation also regulates the financing of official control conducted by the authorities. Those who keep animals for a living are to pay fees for the official control that the authorities undertake.
Parts of the regulation have been made applicable for private individuals who keep domestic animals as well, meaning that those individuals can be made to pay fees for official control. This applies on a national level in Sweden. However, only certain situations lead to private individuals having to pay fees for official control. One such situation is when the supervisory body has been alerted through a complaint by someone from the public that the private individual’s keeping of animals does not meet the requirements of the Animal Welfare Act. The complaint entails the supervisory body to undertake an inspection as official control of the individual. If during the control the supervisory body finds that the individual does in fact not comply with the Animal Welfare Act, the supervisory body is to impose a fee for the control.
Given that the fee is mandatory for the individual and that it derives from exercise of authority, the question posed in this essay is what standard of proof the court of law apply in legal cases regarding fees for official control, when the private individual has opposed the duty to pay the fee. At what point is the requirement for adequate evidence met?
Public administrative law does not hold the answers for the question asked, as there is no general standard of proof within this field of law. One has to search elsewhere for answers. Nevertheless, the conclusions drawn from the essay merely seems to validate what is already known about evidential requirements in public administrative law: the legal position on the matter is uncertain. A few suggestions and considerations can, however, be pointed out.}},
author = {{Nyman, Emma}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Avgiftsskyldig för brister i djurhållningen? En analys av mål om avgift för offentlig kontroll på djurskyddsområdet}},
year = {{2023}},
}