Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Experter i domstolen - Rättens sammansättning i ljuset av processuella principer inom förvaltnings- och miljöprocessen

Hultkvist, Oliwer LU (2023) JURM02 20231
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Inom svensk förvaltningsprocess är huvudregeln att en juristdomare och tre nämndemän prövar frågor i förvaltningsrätten. Om sakkunskap behövs i målet är utgångspunkten att detta får tillföras genom en förordnad sakkunnig. Som undantag till denna huvudregel har det i vissa mål i förvaltningsrätten ansetts berättigat att låta tekniska ledamöter, eller expertledamöter, ingå i rätten såsom domare. Detta behov av expertis i rätten har också ansetts finnas i bland annat mark- och miljödomstolarna där tekniska råd och särskilda ledamöter ingår. Varför lagstiftaren valt att låta experter ingå i vissa domstolar och måltyper men inte i andra framgår inte alltid klart. Det motiveras dock ofta med att de mål som försetts med experter är tekniskt... (More)
Inom svensk förvaltningsprocess är huvudregeln att en juristdomare och tre nämndemän prövar frågor i förvaltningsrätten. Om sakkunskap behövs i målet är utgångspunkten att detta får tillföras genom en förordnad sakkunnig. Som undantag till denna huvudregel har det i vissa mål i förvaltningsrätten ansetts berättigat att låta tekniska ledamöter, eller expertledamöter, ingå i rätten såsom domare. Detta behov av expertis i rätten har också ansetts finnas i bland annat mark- och miljödomstolarna där tekniska råd och särskilda ledamöter ingår. Varför lagstiftaren valt att låta experter ingå i vissa domstolar och måltyper men inte i andra framgår inte alltid klart. Det motiveras dock ofta med att de mål som försetts med experter är tekniskt komplicerade och kräver särskild kunskap. Samtidigt finns flera andra aspekter för rätten att beakta vid bedöm-ningen av hur djupgående och omfattande prövning som behövs. Både hur omfattande rättens utredningsansvar är i ett visst mål och hur ramen i målet dras upp genom parternas dispositioner spelar roll för rättens prövning. Dess-utom finns olika intressen och övergripande funktioner att beakta inom pro-cessrätten. Dessa kan i sin tur tänkas påverka vilka behov rätten har av olika slags ledamöter och prövningens omfattning. Det finns emellertid inget som tyder på att lagstiftaren haft dessa delar av processrätten i åtanke när den ut-format sammansättningen i de olika domstolarna.
Det som sägs ovan föranleder arbetes slutsatser. Processrättens delar tycks påverka varandra mer än lagstiftaren tagit i beaktande. En generell möjlighet för rätten att adjungera expertledamöter hade gett rättstillämparen möjlighet att själv utforma sina utredningsmöjligheter, både mot bakgrund av hur tekniskt komplicerat ett mål är och mot bakgrund av andra processrättsliga aspekter såsom utredningsansvarets omfattning i det enskilda målet. Utredningsansva-rets omfattning tycks nämligen variera från mål till mål och det är svårt, om inte omöjligt, att ge en generell definition av principens omfång. I vissa mål, oftast de indispositiva, är utredningsansvaret mer omfattande medan det är mer begränsat i andra mål. I regel tycks prövningsramen följa utredningsan-svaret på så sätt att friare dispositionsmöjligheter för parterna ofta tycks inne-bära ett mindre omfattande utredningsansvar. Vidare kan ett intresse av mate-riellt riktiga avgöranden tänkas framträda med varierande styrka i varje mål, vilket också kan påverka rättens utredningsansvar. Genom att låta rättstilläm-paren göra bedömningen av sitt utredningsansvar och därmed vilken samman-sättning som behövs i en mer processrättslig kontext, uppnås en mer sam-manhängande processrätt som förmodligen kan svara bättre på de behov av utredning och kompetens som kan uppstå i rätten. Om lagstiftaren bara låter experter ingå i vissa domstolar eller måltyper, kan en fullständig korrespon-dens mellan processrättens delar aldrig uppnås. (Less)
Abstract
In the Swedish administrative process, a legal judge and three lay judges typi-cally examine questions in the administrative court. If expertise is needed in the case, the main rule is that this may be provided by an appointed expert. As an exception to this general rule, it has been considered justified in certain cases in the Administrative Court to include technical or expert members in the court as judges. This need for expertise in the court has also been consid-ered to exist in the Land and Environment courts where technical advisors and special members are included. It is not always clear why the legislator has chosen to include experts in some courts and types of cases but not in others. However, it is often justified by the fact... (More)
In the Swedish administrative process, a legal judge and three lay judges typi-cally examine questions in the administrative court. If expertise is needed in the case, the main rule is that this may be provided by an appointed expert. As an exception to this general rule, it has been considered justified in certain cases in the Administrative Court to include technical or expert members in the court as judges. This need for expertise in the court has also been consid-ered to exist in the Land and Environment courts where technical advisors and special members are included. It is not always clear why the legislator has chosen to include experts in some courts and types of cases but not in others. However, it is often justified by the fact that the cases with experts are techni-cally complicated and require special knowledge. At the same time, there are several other aspects for the court to consider when assessing the depth and breadth of the examination to be carried out. Both the extent of the court's in-vestigative responsibility in each case and the way in which the framework of the case is set up by the parties' dispositions play a role in the court's review. In addition, there are various interests to be considered in procedural law. These may in turn affect the needs of the court for different compositions and the scope of the review. However, there is no indication that the legislator took these aspects of procedural law into account when determining the com-position of the various courts.
The above leads to the conclusions of the thesis. The components of proce-dural law seem to affect each other more than the legislator has considered. A general possibility for the court to co-opt expert members would have given the courts the opportunity to design their own investigation possibilities, both in the light of how technically complicated a case is and in the light of other procedural aspects such as the scope of the responsibility for investigation in the individual case. The scope of the responsibility to investigate appears to vary from case to case and it is difficult, if not impossible, to give a general definition of the scope of the principle. In some cases, usually those that are not amenable to out-of-court settlement, the responsibility to investigate is more extensive, while in other cases it is more limited. Generally, the court´s review in each case appears to align with its investigative responsibility, wherein greater latitude for the parties to bind the court with their dispositions tends to correspond to a more limited investigative responsibility. Further-more, an interest in materially correct decisions can be expected to emerge with varying strength in each case, which may also affect the court's investiga-tion. By allowing the courts to make the assessment of their own responsibil-ity to investigate and thus the composition needed in a procedural context, a more coherent procedural law can be achieved, better attuned to the demands for investigation and expertise that may arise in court. However, if the legisla-tor only includes experts in specific courts or types of cases, full correspond-ence between the elements of procedural law can never be achieved. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Hultkvist, Oliwer LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Experts in court - composition of the Court in the light of procedural principles in administrative and environmental proceedings
course
JURM02 20231
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
förvaltningsrätt, förvaltningsprocessrätt, sammansättning
language
Swedish
id
9116285
date added to LUP
2023-06-08 14:27:41
date last changed
2023-06-08 14:27:41
@misc{9116285,
  abstract     = {{In the Swedish administrative process, a legal judge and three lay judges typi-cally examine questions in the administrative court. If expertise is needed in the case, the main rule is that this may be provided by an appointed expert. As an exception to this general rule, it has been considered justified in certain cases in the Administrative Court to include technical or expert members in the court as judges. This need for expertise in the court has also been consid-ered to exist in the Land and Environment courts where technical advisors and special members are included. It is not always clear why the legislator has chosen to include experts in some courts and types of cases but not in others. However, it is often justified by the fact that the cases with experts are techni-cally complicated and require special knowledge. At the same time, there are several other aspects for the court to consider when assessing the depth and breadth of the examination to be carried out. Both the extent of the court's in-vestigative responsibility in each case and the way in which the framework of the case is set up by the parties' dispositions play a role in the court's review. In addition, there are various interests to be considered in procedural law. These may in turn affect the needs of the court for different compositions and the scope of the review. However, there is no indication that the legislator took these aspects of procedural law into account when determining the com-position of the various courts.
The above leads to the conclusions of the thesis. The components of proce-dural law seem to affect each other more than the legislator has considered. A general possibility for the court to co-opt expert members would have given the courts the opportunity to design their own investigation possibilities, both in the light of how technically complicated a case is and in the light of other procedural aspects such as the scope of the responsibility for investigation in the individual case. The scope of the responsibility to investigate appears to vary from case to case and it is difficult, if not impossible, to give a general definition of the scope of the principle. In some cases, usually those that are not amenable to out-of-court settlement, the responsibility to investigate is more extensive, while in other cases it is more limited. Generally, the court´s review in each case appears to align with its investigative responsibility, wherein greater latitude for the parties to bind the court with their dispositions tends to correspond to a more limited investigative responsibility. Further-more, an interest in materially correct decisions can be expected to emerge with varying strength in each case, which may also affect the court's investiga-tion. By allowing the courts to make the assessment of their own responsibil-ity to investigate and thus the composition needed in a procedural context, a more coherent procedural law can be achieved, better attuned to the demands for investigation and expertise that may arise in court. However, if the legisla-tor only includes experts in specific courts or types of cases, full correspond-ence between the elements of procedural law can never be achieved.}},
  author       = {{Hultkvist, Oliwer}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Experter i domstolen - Rättens sammansättning i ljuset av processuella principer inom förvaltnings- och miljöprocessen}},
  year         = {{2023}},
}