Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Vad ryms i vågskålen? – En analys av domstolens proportionalitetsprövning vid processuell edition i dispositiva tvistemål

Bevheden, Frans LU (2024) JURM02 20242
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (French)
Les dispositions du chapitre 38 du Code de procédure suédois permettent à une partie d’obtenir une preuve documentaire détenue par la partie adverse ou par un tiers lors d'un litige civil. Cette obligation de production de documents est toutefois soumise à certaines conditions. Le document doit être identifié, détenu, susceptible de présenter une importance en tant qu'élément de preuve ainsi que juridiquement pertinent. Il y a de plus certaines exceptions codifiées à cette obligation.

Au cours des dernières années, un critère non codifié est apparu dans la jurisprudence de la Cour suprême. Une demande de production de documents doit désormais également être proportionnelle. Cela signifie une mise en balance de la pertinence des éléments... (More)
Les dispositions du chapitre 38 du Code de procédure suédois permettent à une partie d’obtenir une preuve documentaire détenue par la partie adverse ou par un tiers lors d'un litige civil. Cette obligation de production de documents est toutefois soumise à certaines conditions. Le document doit être identifié, détenu, susceptible de présenter une importance en tant qu'élément de preuve ainsi que juridiquement pertinent. Il y a de plus certaines exceptions codifiées à cette obligation.

Au cours des dernières années, un critère non codifié est apparu dans la jurisprudence de la Cour suprême. Une demande de production de documents doit désormais également être proportionnelle. Cela signifie une mise en balance de la pertinence des éléments de preuve en cause et de l'intérêt de la partie adverse à ne pas divulguer ces éléments. Or, le sens et la portée de ce critère de proportionnalité ne sont pas très clairs. Pour cette raison, ce mémoire, en utilisant les sources du droit établies, a pour but de déterminer plus précisément le caractère et la portée du critère de proportionnalité. Ladite mise en balance est donc présentée en tant que décision binaire où certains intérêts et circonstances peuvent être pris en compte, qui sont ensuite pondérés, aboutissant à un certain résultat.

Dans le mémoire, il est conclu que le critère de proportionnalité comprend une évaluation à première vue du cas particulier. Les sources du droit établies indiquent aussi que certaines circonstances peuvent être prises en compte, tandis que certaines sont exclues de l'évaluation. Elles indiquent également des normes générales quant à la pondération des intérêts et du résultat de la pondération. En outre, une discussion est menée sur une prise en compte générale des intérêts provenant d'un tiers lors de la mise en balance. En conclusion, il est peu probable qu'une telle portée soit conforme à la loi, même si on peut argumenter que ce serait possiblement le cas avec le temps.

Enfin, il est conclu que le caractère et la portée du critère de proportionnalité ont successivement été clarifiés par la jurisprudence. Cependant, la mise en balance reste encore discrétionnaire, entraînant une prévisibilité réduite pour les parties. Pour cette raison, le mémoire conclut qu'une codification de la mise en balance suite à une demande de production de documents pourrait tout de même servir d'outil pour mieux la préciser. (Less)
Abstract
The provisions of Chapter 38 of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure enable the parties in a civil litigation to gain access to a document held by the counterparty or a third party. The obligation to produce a document requires that the document is identified, in the possession of the respondent, of judicial significance and that it can be assumed to be of importance as evidence. In addition, some codified limitations can exempt the possessor from his or her obligation.

In recent years, the Swedish Supreme Court has recognised that a request to produce a document also necessitates a proportionality assessment of the request in question. This assessment entails a balancing of interests, weighing the relevance of the evidence at issue,... (More)
The provisions of Chapter 38 of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure enable the parties in a civil litigation to gain access to a document held by the counterparty or a third party. The obligation to produce a document requires that the document is identified, in the possession of the respondent, of judicial significance and that it can be assumed to be of importance as evidence. In addition, some codified limitations can exempt the possessor from his or her obligation.

In recent years, the Swedish Supreme Court has recognised that a request to produce a document also necessitates a proportionality assessment of the request in question. This assessment entails a balancing of interests, weighing the relevance of the evidence at issue, against the opposing party's interest in not disclosing that information. Since no closer definition of the balancing of interests has been defined by the established sources of law, this paper aims to define the nature and extent of the proportionality assessment. By utilising the legal method and presenting the assessment as a binary decision-making model, wherein specific interests and circumstances may be deemed relevant, prioritised, and result in a specific outcome, a more precise definition is set.

The analysis concludes that the proportionality assessment is a prima facie assessment, serving as a final requirement before a request to produce a document is granted. By analysing the established sources of law, it is to some extent possible to deduct which circumstances to consider when conducting the assessment. General guidelines regarding the weighing and outcome of the balancing of interests are also construed. Additionally, a discussion of whether third party interests could be considered in the balancing of interests takes place. The discussion concludes that third party interests cannot be considered in more general terms when conducting the proportionality assessment. However, one could argue that the principle of equality imposes such a consideration.

As a final remark, it is concluded that the proportionality assessment has been gradually clarified by the precedents of the Supreme Court over the years. Nevertheless, the judiciary is still given considerable leeway when assessing whether an obligation to produce a document is proportional, resulting in a less predictable order for the parties in a civil litigation. For this reason, it is noted that a codification of the requisite could serve as a tool in defining how the proportionality assessment is to be conducted. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
Genom bestämmelserna om processuell edition i 38 kap. rättegångsbalken kan en part i ett tvistemål få tillgång till en handling av bevisbetydelse som innehas av motparten eller tredje man. Denna så kallade editionsplikt uppställer flera bifallsförutsättningar. Editionsyrkandet måste ta sikte på en handling som är identifierad, innehas, kan antas vara av betydelse som bevis och som är rättsligt relevant. Editionsplikten förutsätter även att de kodifierade undantagen inte aktualiseras.

I HD:s rättspraxis har det på senare år tillkommit ytterligare ett rekvisit för edition i form av en proportionalitetsprövning. Denna prövning inbegriper en intresseavvägning där editionssökandens intresse av att få ut en handling vägs mot... (More)
Genom bestämmelserna om processuell edition i 38 kap. rättegångsbalken kan en part i ett tvistemål få tillgång till en handling av bevisbetydelse som innehas av motparten eller tredje man. Denna så kallade editionsplikt uppställer flera bifallsförutsättningar. Editionsyrkandet måste ta sikte på en handling som är identifierad, innehas, kan antas vara av betydelse som bevis och som är rättsligt relevant. Editionsplikten förutsätter även att de kodifierade undantagen inte aktualiseras.

I HD:s rättspraxis har det på senare år tillkommit ytterligare ett rekvisit för edition i form av en proportionalitetsprövning. Denna prövning inbegriper en intresseavvägning där editionssökandens intresse av att få ut en handling vägs mot editionssvarandens intresse av att inte lämna ut den. Den närmare innebörden av denna prövning är däremot inte helt tydlig. Med den rättsdogmatiska metoden görs det därför i uppsatsen en ansats att klargöra den närmare innebörden och omfattningen av rekvisitet utifrån de etablerade rättskällorna. Detta genom att framställa intresseavvägningen som en binär beslutsmodell där vissa intressen och omständigheter tillskrivs relevans, rangordnas sinsemellan och resulterar i ett visst utfall.

I analysen konstateras det att proportionalitetsprövningen är en prognosbedömning för det enskilda fallet, vilken bör förutsätta att övriga rekvisit för processuell edition först har prövats. Utifrån rättskällorna går det vidare att uttolka omständigheter som kan eller skulle kunna beaktas inom prövningen. Det går även att utläsa några riktlinjer för prövningens utfall. Vidare förs det en diskussion om huruvida tredjemansintressen kan beaktas vid prövningen. Även om ett beaktande av sådana utomstående intressen inte torde falla under gällande rätt på ett mer allmänt plan, skulle en sådan utvidgning av proportionalitetsprövningen kunna bli en följd av HD:s rättspraxis utifrån tanken om att lika fall ska behandlas lika.

Av utredningen framgår slutligen att proportionalitetsprövningen som bifallsrekvisit för edition successivt har förtydligats i HD:s rättspraxis, men att domstolarna fortfarande lämnas stora friheter vid genomförandet av denna prövning. En följd därav är en minskad förutsebarhet för editionsparterna. Av denna anledning konstateras avslutningsvis att en kodifiering av rekvisitet hade kunnat förtydliga den närmare innebörden och tillvägagångssättet för domstolens proportionalitetsprövning vid edition. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Bevheden, Frans LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
L’obligation de production de documents – Une analyse du critère de proportionnalité dans le cadre d’une demande de production de documents
The obligation to produce documents – An analysis of the Court’s proportionality assessment following a request to produce a document
course
JURM02 20242
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Civilrätt, Civilprocessrätt, Editionsplikt, Processuell editionsplikt, Proportionalitet, Proportionalitetsprövning, Intresseavvägning, Tredjemansintressen, Obligation to produce a document, L'obligation de production de documents
language
Swedish
id
9179641
date added to LUP
2025-01-31 09:51:32
date last changed
2025-01-31 09:51:32
@misc{9179641,
  abstract     = {{The provisions of Chapter 38 of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure enable the parties in a civil litigation to gain access to a document held by the counterparty or a third party. The obligation to produce a document requires that the document is identified, in the possession of the respondent, of judicial significance and that it can be assumed to be of importance as evidence. In addition, some codified limitations can exempt the possessor from his or her obligation.

In recent years, the Swedish Supreme Court has recognised that a request to produce a document also necessitates a proportionality assessment of the request in question. This assessment entails a balancing of interests, weighing the relevance of the evidence at issue, against the opposing party's interest in not disclosing that information. Since no closer definition of the balancing of interests has been defined by the established sources of law, this paper aims to define the nature and extent of the proportionality assessment. By utilising the legal method and presenting the assessment as a binary decision-making model, wherein specific interests and circumstances may be deemed relevant, prioritised, and result in a specific outcome, a more precise definition is set.

The analysis concludes that the proportionality assessment is a prima facie assessment, serving as a final requirement before a request to produce a document is granted. By analysing the established sources of law, it is to some extent possible to deduct which circumstances to consider when conducting the assessment. General guidelines regarding the weighing and outcome of the balancing of interests are also construed. Additionally, a discussion of whether third party interests could be considered in the balancing of interests takes place. The discussion concludes that third party interests cannot be considered in more general terms when conducting the proportionality assessment. However, one could argue that the principle of equality imposes such a consideration.

As a final remark, it is concluded that the proportionality assessment has been gradually clarified by the precedents of the Supreme Court over the years. Nevertheless, the judiciary is still given considerable leeway when assessing whether an obligation to produce a document is proportional, resulting in a less predictable order for the parties in a civil litigation. For this reason, it is noted that a codification of the requisite could serve as a tool in defining how the proportionality assessment is to be conducted.}},
  author       = {{Bevheden, Frans}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Vad ryms i vågskålen? – En analys av domstolens proportionalitetsprövning vid processuell edition i dispositiva tvistemål}},
  year         = {{2024}},
}