Rättssäkert för tredje man? - En kritisk analys av tredje mans rätt vid utmätning av lös egendom
(2023) LAGF03 20232Faculty of Law
Department of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- 2023 kom ett nytt HD-avgörande mot bakgrund av en situation då en klocka förvarad i en lånad bil blivit utmätt för förarens skulder. De gällde tolkningen av besittningsbegreppet i äganderättspresumtionen i 4 kap 18 § UB, men kan placeras i den större kontexten av tredje mans rätt vid utmätning av lös egendom.
Denna uppsats syftar till att belysa aspekter i utsökningsbalkens reglering av tredje mans rätt vid utmätning av lös egendom som bedöms problematiska ur ett rättssäkerhetsperspektiv, baserat på aspekter kring förutsägbarhet respektive rätten till domstolsprövning som rättssäkerhetsgaranti – utifrån Peczekiks teorier. De element i tredje mans rätt som undersöks är dels äganderättspresumtionen och tolkningen av dess... (More) - 2023 kom ett nytt HD-avgörande mot bakgrund av en situation då en klocka förvarad i en lånad bil blivit utmätt för förarens skulder. De gällde tolkningen av besittningsbegreppet i äganderättspresumtionen i 4 kap 18 § UB, men kan placeras i den större kontexten av tredje mans rätt vid utmätning av lös egendom.
Denna uppsats syftar till att belysa aspekter i utsökningsbalkens reglering av tredje mans rätt vid utmätning av lös egendom som bedöms problematiska ur ett rättssäkerhetsperspektiv, baserat på aspekter kring förutsägbarhet respektive rätten till domstolsprövning som rättssäkerhetsgaranti – utifrån Peczekiks teorier. De element i tredje mans rätt som undersöks är dels äganderättspresumtionen och tolkningen av dess besittningsbegrepp i 4 kap 18 § UB, dels tredje mans möjligheter att hävda bättre rätt till den utmätta egendomen genom att på olika sätt få äganderättsanspråket avgjort med mål att separera egendomen från utmätningsgäldenären, med grund i 4 kap 20 och 22 §§ UB.
Studien visar på flera brister i rättssäkerheten för tredje man, bland annat ett mycket otydligt besittningsbegrepp i 4 kap 18 § UB:s äganderättspresumtion som brister i exakthet och generalitet och därmed skapar oförutsägbarhet för tredje man kring hur presumtionen faktiskt kan brytas. Dessutom föreligger en osäkerhet i tillämpningen av 4 kap 20 § UB kring när föreläggande om att väcka talan om bättre rätt faktiskt meddelas tredje man, vilket bedöms som den säkraste möjligheten för denne att hävda bättre rätt till den utmätta egendomen. Det, tillsammans med ett högt beviskrav, skapar i sin tur en svag rättssäkerhetsgaranti för tredje man med ett äganderättsanspråk. (Less) - Abstract
- This year, a new judgment has emerged from the Swedish Supreme court, concerning the interpretation of the concept of possession in Chapter 4, § 18 of The Enforcement Code. The case involves the situation of a watch placed in a borrowed car, which was attached for the debts of the driver, and can be situated in the broader context of the relationship to a third party upon the attachment of personal property.
This essay aims to illustrate aspects of the regulations regarding the relationship to a third party upon the attachment of personal property in The Enforcement Code, seen as problematic according to the rule of law. This assessment is based on aspects of predictability and the right to a fair trial as procedural guarantees... (More) - This year, a new judgment has emerged from the Swedish Supreme court, concerning the interpretation of the concept of possession in Chapter 4, § 18 of The Enforcement Code. The case involves the situation of a watch placed in a borrowed car, which was attached for the debts of the driver, and can be situated in the broader context of the relationship to a third party upon the attachment of personal property.
This essay aims to illustrate aspects of the regulations regarding the relationship to a third party upon the attachment of personal property in The Enforcement Code, seen as problematic according to the rule of law. This assessment is based on aspects of predictability and the right to a fair trial as procedural guarantees presented in Peczenik's theories. The elements of the relationship to a third party upon the attachment of personal property being examined are, firstly, the legal presumption of ownership based on possession in Chapter 4, §18 of The Enforcement Code, especially the interpretation of the concept of possession. Secondly, the essay will explore the third party’s possibilities to separate the property from the debtor after claiming a superior right to the property, based on Chapter 4, §§ 20 and 22 of The Enforcement Code.
The study presents several weaknesses according to the rule of law for the third party, including a very unclear concept of possession in Chapter 4, § 18 of The Enforcement Code, based on faults in accuracy and generality. This lack of clarity creates unpredictability for a third party regarding how the legal presumption of ownership can be overruled to the third party’s advantage. Moreover, it is shown that it is uncertain how Chapter 4, § 20 of The Enforcement Code should be practiced. It provides the Enforcement Service with a reason to order the third party to commence an action in the matter against the applicant and the debtor (in court) and is judged as the strongest procedural guarantee. Based on the aforementioned, together with a highly stated evidentiary requirement, the procedural guarantees for a third party claiming a superior right to attached personal property can be seen as inadequate. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9142733
- author
- Wallentin, Edvin LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20232
- year
- 2023
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Sakrätt, utsökningsbalken, tredje mans rätt vid utmätning, besittning, separationsrätt
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9142733
- date added to LUP
- 2024-02-02 12:41:41
- date last changed
- 2024-02-02 12:41:41
@misc{9142733,
abstract = {{This year, a new judgment has emerged from the Swedish Supreme court, concerning the interpretation of the concept of possession in Chapter 4, § 18 of The Enforcement Code. The case involves the situation of a watch placed in a borrowed car, which was attached for the debts of the driver, and can be situated in the broader context of the relationship to a third party upon the attachment of personal property.
This essay aims to illustrate aspects of the regulations regarding the relationship to a third party upon the attachment of personal property in The Enforcement Code, seen as problematic according to the rule of law. This assessment is based on aspects of predictability and the right to a fair trial as procedural guarantees presented in Peczenik's theories. The elements of the relationship to a third party upon the attachment of personal property being examined are, firstly, the legal presumption of ownership based on possession in Chapter 4, §18 of The Enforcement Code, especially the interpretation of the concept of possession. Secondly, the essay will explore the third party’s possibilities to separate the property from the debtor after claiming a superior right to the property, based on Chapter 4, §§ 20 and 22 of The Enforcement Code.
The study presents several weaknesses according to the rule of law for the third party, including a very unclear concept of possession in Chapter 4, § 18 of The Enforcement Code, based on faults in accuracy and generality. This lack of clarity creates unpredictability for a third party regarding how the legal presumption of ownership can be overruled to the third party’s advantage. Moreover, it is shown that it is uncertain how Chapter 4, § 20 of The Enforcement Code should be practiced. It provides the Enforcement Service with a reason to order the third party to commence an action in the matter against the applicant and the debtor (in court) and is judged as the strongest procedural guarantee. Based on the aforementioned, together with a highly stated evidentiary requirement, the procedural guarantees for a third party claiming a superior right to attached personal property can be seen as inadequate.}},
author = {{Wallentin, Edvin}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Rättssäkert för tredje man? - En kritisk analys av tredje mans rätt vid utmätning av lös egendom}},
year = {{2023}},
}