Domarförslagsorganens tillkomst och arbete - En komparativ studie av hur förslagsorganen har vuxit fram och deras roll i domarutnämningsprocessen i Sverige, Danmark och Norge.
(2023) JURM02 20231Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- I uppsatsen diskuteras och jämförs förslagsorganen och domarutnämning i Sverige (Domarnämnden), Norge (Innstillingsrådet for dommere) och Dan-mark (Dommerudnævnelsesrådet). Fokuset ligger främst på förslagsorganen, men i och med deras roll diskuteras även domarutnämningen i sin helhet. Särskild hänsyn tas till hur de förhåller sig till grundlag, maktfördelning och folksuveränitet.
I uppsatsen besvaras följande frågor:
1. Finns det förslagsorgan i länderna och hur har de i så fall tillkommit?
2. Har länderna valt att grundlagsfästa domarutnämningsprocessen och hur ser regleringarna ut i så fall?
3. Vilken funktion har eventuella förslagsorganen i ländernas domarut-nämningsprocesser?
4. Finns det anledning till ändring av det... (More) - I uppsatsen diskuteras och jämförs förslagsorganen och domarutnämning i Sverige (Domarnämnden), Norge (Innstillingsrådet for dommere) och Dan-mark (Dommerudnævnelsesrådet). Fokuset ligger främst på förslagsorganen, men i och med deras roll diskuteras även domarutnämningen i sin helhet. Särskild hänsyn tas till hur de förhåller sig till grundlag, maktfördelning och folksuveränitet.
I uppsatsen besvaras följande frågor:
1. Finns det förslagsorgan i länderna och hur har de i så fall tillkommit?
2. Har länderna valt att grundlagsfästa domarutnämningsprocessen och hur ser regleringarna ut i så fall?
3. Vilken funktion har eventuella förslagsorganen i ländernas domarut-nämningsprocesser?
4. Finns det anledning till ändring av det nuvarande svenska systemet?
Svaret på den första frågan är att alla tre länder har förslagsorgan som är involverade i utnämningsprocessen. Dagens förslagsorgan skapades 1999 i Danmark, 2001 i Norge och 2010 i Sverige. Dock hade ämnet diskuterats i juridiska gemenskaper sedan 1960-talet i Norge. Sverige var först med att introducera ett förslagsorgan 1975, medan Norge, som var näst på tur, in-förde ett 1990. Dessa organ var dock inte särskilt välreglerade och höll inte måttet när de jämfördes med andra länders förslagsorgan, samt jämfördes med vad som hade tillkommit i internationella traktat. Utformningen av för-slagsorgan har gjorts med tydliga europeiska influenser. Detta märks särskilt med hänvisningar till Frankrike, Västtyskland/Tyskland och europeiska trak-tat.
Som svar på den andra frågan kan det konstateras att det i ländernas grund-lagar regleras att det är ländernas regeringar som utser domare. Det är även vanligt med krav på att de som utses till domare görs så på en saklig grund. Förslagsorganen är dock inte reglerade i någon av grundlagarna.
Gällande den tredje frågan så liknar förslagsorganen varandra i vilken funkt-ion de har, vilket är att ge förslag till domare. Det finns dock vissa variation-er som kan verka vara relativt små, men som skapar väsentliga skillnader. Dessa skillnader är främst i hur råden är sammansatta, deras arbete i förhål-lande till regeringens utnämningsrätt och i vilken grad andra statsmakter kan utöva kontroll över förslagsorganen.
Angående den fjärde frågan bör Sverige ändra sina nuvarande regler, främst när det gäller Domarnämndens utformning och hur lång tid en ledamot kan bli förordnad i nämnden. Om reformer gjordes hade det reflekterat grund-lagsstiftningen om saklighet vid domarutnämningar bättre. Dessutom bör en grundlagsfästning av Domarnämnden göras, för säkerställa organets existens och funktion. (Less) - Abstract
- This thesis is a comparative study between advisory councils and their roles in the appointment process of judges in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. The advisory councils are the Judges Proposals Board in Sweden (“Domarnämnden”), Judicial Appointments Council in Denmark (“Dommerudnævnelsesrådet”), and Judicial Appointment’s Board in Norway (“Innstillingsrådet for Dommere”).
In the thesis, four questions are answered:
1. Do the countries have advisory councils, and if so, how have they come to be?
2. Are these regulated in the countries’ constitutions, and if so, what are those regulations?
3. What functions do the countries’ advisory councils of today have?
4. Are there any reasons that Sweden should change its current system?
The... (More) - This thesis is a comparative study between advisory councils and their roles in the appointment process of judges in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. The advisory councils are the Judges Proposals Board in Sweden (“Domarnämnden”), Judicial Appointments Council in Denmark (“Dommerudnævnelsesrådet”), and Judicial Appointment’s Board in Norway (“Innstillingsrådet for Dommere”).
In the thesis, four questions are answered:
1. Do the countries have advisory councils, and if so, how have they come to be?
2. Are these regulated in the countries’ constitutions, and if so, what are those regulations?
3. What functions do the countries’ advisory councils of today have?
4. Are there any reasons that Sweden should change its current system?
The answer to the first question is that all three countries have advisory councils. The iterations of today came to be in 1999 in Denmark, 2001 in Norway, and 2010 in Sweden. However, there has been an ongoing discus-sion in the legal communities since the 1960s, starting in Norway. Sweden was then the first country to introduce some form of advisory council in 1975, and Norway the second, introducing an advisory council in 1990. These iterations were however not well regulated and not up to par com-pared to international charters and other countries’ advisory councils. The advisory councils’ have been heavily influenced by European ideas, with France, West Germany and European treatises being the main sources of inspiration.
Regarding the second question, the appointment of judges is regulated in the countries’ respective constitutions. More specifically, there are regula-tions stating that the executive is responsible for electing them and there is often a requisite that the judges must be appointed on an objective basis. However, there are no regulations of the advisory councils in any of the three countries constitutions.
The third question’s answer is that the advisory councils of today have similar functions but differ in some ways. The Judges Proposals Board and the Judicial Appointments Council can in this context be viewed as somewhat opposite each other, with the Judicial Appointment’ Board being somewhat in the middle. The ways they differ is mostly regarding the ways they pro-pose potential judges, the way the councils are composed, and the control that other branches of government powers have of the councils.
To answer the final question, some reforms regarding the Judges Proposals Board are recommended. Specifically, the board’s composition should be changed and the duration that a member may be appointed should by limited by law. There is an objectivity requirement when appointing judges enshrined in the Swedish constitution. If the changes regarding composition and duration were made, the Judges Proposals Board would be a better reflection of the constitutional requirement. Furthermore, the Judges Proposals Board should be regulated in the constitution of Sweden so that the board’s important functions cannot be changed through ordinary law. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9116414
- author
- Sporre, Ludvig LU
- supervisor
-
- Per Nilsén LU
- organization
- alternative title
- The Creation of Advisory Councils and their functions - A comparative study of how the Advisory councils in Sweden, Denmark and Norway were created, and the functions they have in the countries' appointment process of judges
- course
- JURM02 20231
- year
- 2023
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- statsrätt, komparativ rätt
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9116414
- date added to LUP
- 2023-06-12 13:52:52
- date last changed
- 2023-06-12 13:52:52
@misc{9116414,
abstract = {{This thesis is a comparative study between advisory councils and their roles in the appointment process of judges in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. The advisory councils are the Judges Proposals Board in Sweden (“Domarnämnden”), Judicial Appointments Council in Denmark (“Dommerudnævnelsesrådet”), and Judicial Appointment’s Board in Norway (“Innstillingsrådet for Dommere”).
In the thesis, four questions are answered:
1. Do the countries have advisory councils, and if so, how have they come to be?
2. Are these regulated in the countries’ constitutions, and if so, what are those regulations?
3. What functions do the countries’ advisory councils of today have?
4. Are there any reasons that Sweden should change its current system?
The answer to the first question is that all three countries have advisory councils. The iterations of today came to be in 1999 in Denmark, 2001 in Norway, and 2010 in Sweden. However, there has been an ongoing discus-sion in the legal communities since the 1960s, starting in Norway. Sweden was then the first country to introduce some form of advisory council in 1975, and Norway the second, introducing an advisory council in 1990. These iterations were however not well regulated and not up to par com-pared to international charters and other countries’ advisory councils. The advisory councils’ have been heavily influenced by European ideas, with France, West Germany and European treatises being the main sources of inspiration.
Regarding the second question, the appointment of judges is regulated in the countries’ respective constitutions. More specifically, there are regula-tions stating that the executive is responsible for electing them and there is often a requisite that the judges must be appointed on an objective basis. However, there are no regulations of the advisory councils in any of the three countries constitutions.
The third question’s answer is that the advisory councils of today have similar functions but differ in some ways. The Judges Proposals Board and the Judicial Appointments Council can in this context be viewed as somewhat opposite each other, with the Judicial Appointment’ Board being somewhat in the middle. The ways they differ is mostly regarding the ways they pro-pose potential judges, the way the councils are composed, and the control that other branches of government powers have of the councils.
To answer the final question, some reforms regarding the Judges Proposals Board are recommended. Specifically, the board’s composition should be changed and the duration that a member may be appointed should by limited by law. There is an objectivity requirement when appointing judges enshrined in the Swedish constitution. If the changes regarding composition and duration were made, the Judges Proposals Board would be a better reflection of the constitutional requirement. Furthermore, the Judges Proposals Board should be regulated in the constitution of Sweden so that the board’s important functions cannot be changed through ordinary law.}},
author = {{Sporre, Ludvig}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Domarförslagsorganens tillkomst och arbete - En komparativ studie av hur förslagsorganen har vuxit fram och deras roll i domarutnämningsprocessen i Sverige, Danmark och Norge.}},
year = {{2023}},
}