Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Överraskande rättstillämpning - En analys av förhållandet mellan jura novit curia och kontradiktionsprincipen

Einarsson, Elin LU (2024) LAGF03 20242
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Denna uppsats analyserar förhållandet mellan principen jura novit curia (domstolen känner rätten) och kontradiktionsprincipen i svensk civilprocessrätt. Jura novit curia innebär att domstolen är fri i sin rättstillämpning, oberoende av parternas argumentation, medan kontradiktionsprincipen garanterar parternas rätt att yttra sig över allt som kan påverka målets utgång. Principerna existerar parallellt, men deras tillämpning kan komma i konflikt, särskilt när domstolen tillämpar rättsregler som parterna inte har diskuterat under processen. Om parterna inte informeras om sådana rättsregler riskerar rättstillämpningen att bli överraskande, vilket strider mot kontradiktionsprincipen. Detta väcker frågan om domstolen har en skyldighet att... (More)
Denna uppsats analyserar förhållandet mellan principen jura novit curia (domstolen känner rätten) och kontradiktionsprincipen i svensk civilprocessrätt. Jura novit curia innebär att domstolen är fri i sin rättstillämpning, oberoende av parternas argumentation, medan kontradiktionsprincipen garanterar parternas rätt att yttra sig över allt som kan påverka målets utgång. Principerna existerar parallellt, men deras tillämpning kan komma i konflikt, särskilt när domstolen tillämpar rättsregler som parterna inte har diskuterat under processen. Om parterna inte informeras om sådana rättsregler riskerar rättstillämpningen att bli överraskande, vilket strider mot kontradiktionsprincipen. Detta väcker frågan om domstolen har en skyldighet att upplysa parterna om tillämpliga rättsregler som de inte själva har åberopat.
Syftet med uppsatsen är att undersöka om domstolen har en upplysningsplikt gentemot parterna när nya rättsregler identifieras, samt hur överraskande rättstillämpning förhåller sig till rätten till en rättvis rättegång enligt art. 6 EKMR.
Uppsatsen bygger på en granskning av doktrin, praxis och förarbeten. Principernas respektive innebörd och betydelsen av domstolens materiella processledning presenteras, liksom rättsutvecklingen i praxis och olika författares ståndpunkter. Underlaget ger inget entydigt svar på frågan om upplysningsskyldighet, och HD:s praxis framstår som splittrad. Troligtvis beror det osäkra rättsläget på avsaknaden av vägledning från Europadomstolen, som ännu inte tagit ställning i frågan.
Analysen visar att gällande rätt inte uttryckligen ålägger domstolen en skyldighet att låta parterna bemöta nyupptäckta rättsregler. Det framgår dock av rättskällorna att det är lämpligt att domstolen gör detta inom ramen för sin materiella processledning. För att stärka rätten till en rättvis rättegång föreslås att jura novit curia ges en mer begränsad omfattning, till förmån för kontradiktionsprincipen. Även rättsfrågor bör, med andra ord, omfattas av kravet på kontradiktion. (Less)
Abstract
This essay analyzes the relationship between the principle of jura novit curia (“the court knows the law”) and the principle of contradiction in Swedish civil procedural law. The principle of jura novit curia grants the court the freedom to apply legal rules to a case, irrespective of the arguments presented by the parties, whereas the principle of contradiction ensures that the parties have the right to respond to any material that may influence the outcome of the case. While these principles operate alongside one another, conflicts can arise, particularly when the court applies legal rules that have not been addressed during the proceedings. If the parties are not informed of such legal rules, the application of the law may come as a... (More)
This essay analyzes the relationship between the principle of jura novit curia (“the court knows the law”) and the principle of contradiction in Swedish civil procedural law. The principle of jura novit curia grants the court the freedom to apply legal rules to a case, irrespective of the arguments presented by the parties, whereas the principle of contradiction ensures that the parties have the right to respond to any material that may influence the outcome of the case. While these principles operate alongside one another, conflicts can arise, particularly when the court applies legal rules that have not been addressed during the proceedings. If the parties are not informed of such legal rules, the application of the law may come as a surprise, thereby violating the principle of contradiction. This raises the question of whether the court has an obligation to inform the parties about relevant legal aspects that they themselves have not invoked.
The purpose of this essay is to determine whether the court has a duty to notify the parties when it identifies new legal rules, and to examine how unexpected application of the law aligns with the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The essay is based on a review of legal doctrine, case law and preparatory works. It outlines the respective meanings of the principles and the significance of the court’s substantive procedural guidance, as well as the evolution of case law and the perspectives of various authors in legal literature. The material does not provide a definitive answer to the question of whether there is a duty to inform, and the case law of the Swedish Supreme Court appears inconsistent. This legal uncertainty is likely due to the lack of guidance from the European Court of Human Rights, which has yet to address the issue.
The analysis reveals that Swedish law currently does not explicitly impose an obligation on the court to allow the parties to respond to newly identified legal rules. However, it is advisable for the court to do so as part of its substantive procedural guidance. To strengthen the right to a fair trial, it is proposed that the scope of jura novit curia should be narrowed in favor of the principle of contradiction. In other words, legal issues should also fall within the scope of the contradiction requirement. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Einarsson, Elin LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20242
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
Processrätt, överraskande rättstillämpning, upplysningsskyldighet, jura novit curia, kontradiktionsprincipen
language
Swedish
id
9179582
date added to LUP
2025-03-20 13:55:46
date last changed
2025-03-20 13:55:46
@misc{9179582,
  abstract     = {{This essay analyzes the relationship between the principle of jura novit curia (“the court knows the law”) and the principle of contradiction in Swedish civil procedural law. The principle of jura novit curia grants the court the freedom to apply legal rules to a case, irrespective of the arguments presented by the parties, whereas the principle of contradiction ensures that the parties have the right to respond to any material that may influence the outcome of the case. While these principles operate alongside one another, conflicts can arise, particularly when the court applies legal rules that have not been addressed during the proceedings. If the parties are not informed of such legal rules, the application of the law may come as a surprise, thereby violating the principle of contradiction. This raises the question of whether the court has an obligation to inform the parties about relevant legal aspects that they themselves have not invoked.
The purpose of this essay is to determine whether the court has a duty to notify the parties when it identifies new legal rules, and to examine how unexpected application of the law aligns with the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The essay is based on a review of legal doctrine, case law and preparatory works. It outlines the respective meanings of the principles and the significance of the court’s substantive procedural guidance, as well as the evolution of case law and the perspectives of various authors in legal literature. The material does not provide a definitive answer to the question of whether there is a duty to inform, and the case law of the Swedish Supreme Court appears inconsistent. This legal uncertainty is likely due to the lack of guidance from the European Court of Human Rights, which has yet to address the issue.
The analysis reveals that Swedish law currently does not explicitly impose an obligation on the court to allow the parties to respond to newly identified legal rules. However, it is advisable for the court to do so as part of its substantive procedural guidance. To strengthen the right to a fair trial, it is proposed that the scope of jura novit curia should be narrowed in favor of the principle of contradiction. In other words, legal issues should also fall within the scope of the contradiction requirement.}},
  author       = {{Einarsson, Elin}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Överraskande rättstillämpning - En analys av förhållandet mellan jura novit curia och kontradiktionsprincipen}},
  year         = {{2024}},
}