Skadestånd som kostnadsersättning - ett skadat kostnadsansvar? Om rättegångskostnader
(2024) LAGF03 20241Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract
- Liability for reimbursing the other party's costs in court proceedings is a common aspect of procedural law, yet it is notably absent in administrative proceedings. Historically, such cost liability was viewed as a form of tort, a perspective that has since been largely abandoned in most types of litigation. However, this tort-based view of cost liability persists and is experiencing a constant resurgence in administrative proceedings. This paper examines the interchangeability between liability for damages and liability for costs.
The approach of analyzing the systematic structure of the law and its coherent framework in relation to the rule on cost liability begins by defining the rule's subject matter: the costs of litigation. The... (More) - Liability for reimbursing the other party's costs in court proceedings is a common aspect of procedural law, yet it is notably absent in administrative proceedings. Historically, such cost liability was viewed as a form of tort, a perspective that has since been largely abandoned in most types of litigation. However, this tort-based view of cost liability persists and is experiencing a constant resurgence in administrative proceedings. This paper examines the interchangeability between liability for damages and liability for costs.
The approach of analyzing the systematic structure of the law and its coherent framework in relation to the rule on cost liability begins by defining the rule's subject matter: the costs of litigation. The notion that this concept would lack purpose if it were a matter of damages casts doubt on its classification as such. Moreover, legal fees are procedural in nature and not associated with damages.
To apply liability for damages – masquerading as liability for reimbursement of costs – to legal expenses, a theory of damages was initially employed. However, this theory has long been obsolete in the legal framework governing cost liability. Its successor, the legal protection theory, completely discards the principles of tort law and the concepts of fault or damage. This latter theory establishes the connection between cost liability and the legal process itself, rather than the damage caused by it. The theoretical differences have led to confusion and difficulties for legislators.
The theoretical considerations in modern discussions seem to be of secondary importance, as is particularly evident to those who study the legislative context of cost liability. However, when liability was introduced into the Code of Judicial Procedure, it was motivated by the concept of legal protection. Nowadays, discussions revolve around purpose, functionality, rule of law, and purely principled motivations, which nonetheless fall within the framework of the earlier theories of legal protection. More questionable is the assertion that the common functions of liability for damages and liability for costs – preventive and reparative – make these institutions equivalent. However, this can be explained by the lack of systematic analysis of the appropriateness of the theories and the fact that efficiency aspects are not taken into account in such an undertaking.
The theoretical premise of a systematic law that is logically consistent, broad in scope, and supported by internal relationships is significantly undermined by the following conclusions. Firstly, viewing liability for damages and liability for reimbursing the other party's costs in court proceedings as interchangeable is contradictory, as only liability for costs is directly and inextricably linked to legal expenses and the legal process. Secondly, there is no consensus that these institutions are interchangeable. The only support for such a view is historical, and its revival in modern time is difficult to reconcile with contemporary notions of rule of law and justice (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- Kostnadsansvar för motpartens rättegångskostnader i domstolsprocess är normalt förekommande i processrätten, men saknas i förvaltningsprocessen. Historiskt sett betraktades kostnadsansvaret som ett skadestånd, en ordning som sedermera övergavs i merparten av processformer, dock inte i förvaltningsprocessen där synen på kostnadsansvaret som skadestånd ständigt finner sin renässans. Denna uppsats undersöker utbytbarheten mellan skadeståndsansvar och kostnadsansvar.
Ansatsen att undersöka systematiken i lagen och rättssystemets koherenta struktur i förhållande till kostnadsansvarsregeln inleds med att definiera föremålet för regeln som sådan, rättegångskostnaden. Redan det faktum att begreppet hade saknat existensberättigande om det... (More) - Kostnadsansvar för motpartens rättegångskostnader i domstolsprocess är normalt förekommande i processrätten, men saknas i förvaltningsprocessen. Historiskt sett betraktades kostnadsansvaret som ett skadestånd, en ordning som sedermera övergavs i merparten av processformer, dock inte i förvaltningsprocessen där synen på kostnadsansvaret som skadestånd ständigt finner sin renässans. Denna uppsats undersöker utbytbarheten mellan skadeståndsansvar och kostnadsansvar.
Ansatsen att undersöka systematiken i lagen och rättssystemets koherenta struktur i förhållande till kostnadsansvarsregeln inleds med att definiera föremålet för regeln som sådan, rättegångskostnaden. Redan det faktum att begreppet hade saknat existensberättigande om det egentligen var fråga om ett skadestånd, föranleder betänkligheter. Därtill är rättegångskostnaden av processuell karaktär och inte knuten till en skada.
För att applicera skadeståndsansvaret – förtäckt till ett kostnadsansvar – på rättegångskostnader, har en skadeståndsteori tillämpats. Det är emellertid länge sedan denna teori hade sin plats i rättsystematiken för kostnadsansvaret. Teorins efterträdare är rättsskyddsteorin, vilken helt frångår de skade-ståndsrättsliga principerna och idéer om skuld eller skada. Det är medelst denna senare teori som kostnadsansvaret kopplas till processen som sådan, och inte den skada som däri uppkommit. Det är också de teoretiska skillnaderna som tycks ha vållat lagstiftaren huvudbry och därför orsakat förvirring.
De teoretiska övervägandena i den moderna diskussionen tycks ha en underordnad betydelse, detta framgår särskilt tydligt för den som studerar diskussionen om kostnadsansvar i lagstiftningssammanhang. Ansvaret motiverades emellertid vid införande i rättegångsbalken av rättsskyddstanken. Numera talas det om syfte, funktion, rättssäkerhet och rent principiella bevekelsegrunder, vilka likväl ryms inom de tidigare rättsskyddsteorierna. Av mer tveksam karaktär är talet om att skadeståndsansvarets och kostnadsansvarets gemensamma funktioner, de preventiva och reparativa, gör instituten ekvivalenta. Detta finner emellertid sin förklaring i bristen på systematisk analys av ändamålsenligheten med, och negligerande av effektivitetshänsyn i, ett sådant äventyr.
Den teoretiska utgångpunkten om en systematisk lag som är logisk motsägelsefri, har omfattande räckvidd, och stödrelationer där emellan, förfelas på ett betydande sätt genom följande slutsatser. Dels är synen på skadestånds-ansvar och kostnadsansvar som utbytbara motsägelsefull, eftersom det bara är kostnadsansvar som är kopplat till en rättegångskostnad; direkt och omedelbart förbunden med processen, dels saknas det samsyn på att instituten skulle vara utbytbara. Det enda stöd som går att finna för en sådan syn är förpassat till historien, och en förnyelse av densamma är svårförenlig med den samtida synen på rättssäkerhet och rättvisa. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9153083
- author
- Degerfeldt, André LU
- supervisor
-
- Karol Nowak LU
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20241
- year
- 2024
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- förvaltningsrätt, processrätt
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9153083
- date added to LUP
- 2024-06-26 11:42:38
- date last changed
- 2024-06-26 11:42:38
@misc{9153083,
abstract = {{Liability for reimbursing the other party's costs in court proceedings is a common aspect of procedural law, yet it is notably absent in administrative proceedings. Historically, such cost liability was viewed as a form of tort, a perspective that has since been largely abandoned in most types of litigation. However, this tort-based view of cost liability persists and is experiencing a constant resurgence in administrative proceedings. This paper examines the interchangeability between liability for damages and liability for costs.
The approach of analyzing the systematic structure of the law and its coherent framework in relation to the rule on cost liability begins by defining the rule's subject matter: the costs of litigation. The notion that this concept would lack purpose if it were a matter of damages casts doubt on its classification as such. Moreover, legal fees are procedural in nature and not associated with damages.
To apply liability for damages – masquerading as liability for reimbursement of costs – to legal expenses, a theory of damages was initially employed. However, this theory has long been obsolete in the legal framework governing cost liability. Its successor, the legal protection theory, completely discards the principles of tort law and the concepts of fault or damage. This latter theory establishes the connection between cost liability and the legal process itself, rather than the damage caused by it. The theoretical differences have led to confusion and difficulties for legislators.
The theoretical considerations in modern discussions seem to be of secondary importance, as is particularly evident to those who study the legislative context of cost liability. However, when liability was introduced into the Code of Judicial Procedure, it was motivated by the concept of legal protection. Nowadays, discussions revolve around purpose, functionality, rule of law, and purely principled motivations, which nonetheless fall within the framework of the earlier theories of legal protection. More questionable is the assertion that the common functions of liability for damages and liability for costs – preventive and reparative – make these institutions equivalent. However, this can be explained by the lack of systematic analysis of the appropriateness of the theories and the fact that efficiency aspects are not taken into account in such an undertaking.
The theoretical premise of a systematic law that is logically consistent, broad in scope, and supported by internal relationships is significantly undermined by the following conclusions. Firstly, viewing liability for damages and liability for reimbursing the other party's costs in court proceedings as interchangeable is contradictory, as only liability for costs is directly and inextricably linked to legal expenses and the legal process. Secondly, there is no consensus that these institutions are interchangeable. The only support for such a view is historical, and its revival in modern time is difficult to reconcile with contemporary notions of rule of law and justice}},
author = {{Degerfeldt, André}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Skadestånd som kostnadsersättning - ett skadat kostnadsansvar? Om rättegångskostnader}},
year = {{2024}},
}