Omvänd åberopsbörda? En studie om åberopsbördans fördelning i en negativ fastställelsetalan
(2023) LAGF03 20232Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- 17 kap. 3§ andra meningen rättegångsbalken (RB) anses innefatta en så kallad åberopsbörda. Beroende på ett rättsfaktums art står en viss part risken för att en omständighet inte åberopats, med följden att omständigheten faller utanför domstolens prövningsram. Rättsfakta kan beskrivas som sakomständigheter vilka påstås uppfylla rekvisit i en materiell rättsregel. Käranden anses som utgångspunkt behöva åberopa de omständigheter som denne grundar sin talan på. I en negativ fastställelsetalan där käranden kan påstå omständigheter som inte motsvarar ett rekvisit väcks frågan om hur åberopsbördan kan fördelas inom denna taleform. Det är denna problematik som undersökts genom frågeställningen: Hur kan åberopsbördan fördelas inom ramen för en... (More)
- 17 kap. 3§ andra meningen rättegångsbalken (RB) anses innefatta en så kallad åberopsbörda. Beroende på ett rättsfaktums art står en viss part risken för att en omständighet inte åberopats, med följden att omständigheten faller utanför domstolens prövningsram. Rättsfakta kan beskrivas som sakomständigheter vilka påstås uppfylla rekvisit i en materiell rättsregel. Käranden anses som utgångspunkt behöva åberopa de omständigheter som denne grundar sin talan på. I en negativ fastställelsetalan där käranden kan påstå omständigheter som inte motsvarar ett rekvisit väcks frågan om hur åberopsbördan kan fördelas inom denna taleform. Det är denna problematik som undersökts genom frågeställningen: Hur kan åberopsbördan fördelas inom ramen för en negativ fastställelsetalan? För att svara på frågan har en tredelad metod tillämpats, bestående av en rättsdogmatisk metod, en litteraturstudie och en analytisk metod.
Uppsatsens avhandlande del har först undersökt de regler och förklaringsmodeller som finns om åberopande och åberopsbördans fördelning. Inledningsvis studerades 17 kap. 3§ andra meningen RB samt tre prevalenta förklaringsmodeller för åberopsbördan. Den första modellen rör rättsfaktas uppdelning som rättsgrundande, rättsändrande och rättsupphävande. Vidare avser den andra modellen processekonomiska överväganden och den sista kopplas till bevisbördan. Därefter undersöktes negativ fastställelsetalan och dess roll inom den svenska processrätten. Avslutningsvis behandlades den (sparsamma) praxis och doktrin som berört den i uppsatsen behandlade problematiken.
I analysen konstateras att rättsläget är oklart. Utifrån förklaringsmodellerna verkar dock åberopsbördan i flera fall bli omvänd, det vill säga att käranden kan ha åberopsbördan för de rättsfakta som en svarande har i andra taleformer och tvärt om. En omvänd åberopsbörda kan även anses lämpligt utifrån en systematisk synpunkt. Det finns dock forskare som förespråkar en mer flexibel fördelning av åberopsbördan. (Less) - Abstract
- Chapter 17, section 3, second sentence of the Swedish Code of Judicial Pro-cedure (SCJP) is considered to include a so-called burden of pleading. Depending on the nature of a material fact, if not pleaded, one of the parties stands the risk of that fact falling outside the scope of the court’s review. Material facts can be described as material circumstances which are claimed to fulfil the prerequisite of a substantive legal rule. Generally, the plaintiff is considered having to plead the circumstances on which it bases its action. In a negative declaratory action, where the plaintiff may claim circumstances which do not correspond to a prerequisite, questions arise regarding the burden of pleading in this form of action. This issue is... (More)
- Chapter 17, section 3, second sentence of the Swedish Code of Judicial Pro-cedure (SCJP) is considered to include a so-called burden of pleading. Depending on the nature of a material fact, if not pleaded, one of the parties stands the risk of that fact falling outside the scope of the court’s review. Material facts can be described as material circumstances which are claimed to fulfil the prerequisite of a substantive legal rule. Generally, the plaintiff is considered having to plead the circumstances on which it bases its action. In a negative declaratory action, where the plaintiff may claim circumstances which do not correspond to a prerequisite, questions arise regarding the burden of pleading in this form of action. This issue is examined in the essay, by the question: How can the burden of pleading be allocated in a negative declaratory action? To answer the question a three-part method was used, consisting of a legal dogmatic method, a literature study and an analytic method.
The exploratory part of the essay starts with examining the rules and explanatory models that exist regarding pleading and the burden thereof. This consisted of chapter 17, section 3, second sentence of the SCJP and three prevalent explanatory models regarding the burden of pleading being studied. The first model is about the breakdown of material facts as right-founding, right-altering and right-suspending. Furthermore, the second model is connected to procedural economy and the last model to the burden of proof. Subsequently, the negative declaratory action was examined, as well as its role in Swedish procedural law. In closing, the (sparse) case law and legal research that concerns the issue addressed in the essay were examined.
In the analysis it is stated that the legal situation is uncertain. Though, according to the explanatory models, the burden of pleading may in several cases be reversed, ergo, the plaintiff has the burden of pleading for material facts that the respondent has in other forms of action and vice versa. A reversed burden of pleading may also seem suitable from a systematic viewpoint. However, some legal scholars advocate for a more flexible allocation of the burden of pleading. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9143109
- author
- Bodin, Max LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20232
- year
- 2023
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- processrätt
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9143109
- date added to LUP
- 2024-02-02 12:01:51
- date last changed
- 2024-02-02 12:01:51
@misc{9143109,
abstract = {{Chapter 17, section 3, second sentence of the Swedish Code of Judicial Pro-cedure (SCJP) is considered to include a so-called burden of pleading. Depending on the nature of a material fact, if not pleaded, one of the parties stands the risk of that fact falling outside the scope of the court’s review. Material facts can be described as material circumstances which are claimed to fulfil the prerequisite of a substantive legal rule. Generally, the plaintiff is considered having to plead the circumstances on which it bases its action. In a negative declaratory action, where the plaintiff may claim circumstances which do not correspond to a prerequisite, questions arise regarding the burden of pleading in this form of action. This issue is examined in the essay, by the question: How can the burden of pleading be allocated in a negative declaratory action? To answer the question a three-part method was used, consisting of a legal dogmatic method, a literature study and an analytic method.
The exploratory part of the essay starts with examining the rules and explanatory models that exist regarding pleading and the burden thereof. This consisted of chapter 17, section 3, second sentence of the SCJP and three prevalent explanatory models regarding the burden of pleading being studied. The first model is about the breakdown of material facts as right-founding, right-altering and right-suspending. Furthermore, the second model is connected to procedural economy and the last model to the burden of proof. Subsequently, the negative declaratory action was examined, as well as its role in Swedish procedural law. In closing, the (sparse) case law and legal research that concerns the issue addressed in the essay were examined.
In the analysis it is stated that the legal situation is uncertain. Though, according to the explanatory models, the burden of pleading may in several cases be reversed, ergo, the plaintiff has the burden of pleading for material facts that the respondent has in other forms of action and vice versa. A reversed burden of pleading may also seem suitable from a systematic viewpoint. However, some legal scholars advocate for a more flexible allocation of the burden of pleading.}},
author = {{Bodin, Max}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Omvänd åberopsbörda? En studie om åberopsbördans fördelning i en negativ fastställelsetalan}},
year = {{2023}},
}