Rätt till materiell prövning? - En analys av det civilprocessrättsliga medgivandets förhållande till enskildas rätt till ett effektivt domstolsskydd mot bakgrund av Braathens-fallet
(2024) JURM02 20242Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Inom den svenska civilprocessrätten kan svaranden välja att antingen medge eller bestrida kärandens yrkande. För det fall kärandens yrkande medges ska den prövande domstolen, i ett dispositivt mål, meddela dom med anledning av medgivandet utan att pröva grunden för yrkandet. Detta följer av dispositionsprincipen, vilken är en grundläggande princip som innebär att rätten inte får meddela dom över mer eller annat än vad parterna har yrkat. Vid ett medgivande av kärandens yrkande behöver svaranden inte samtidigt medge grunden för detta. Detta har medfört att svaranden i en del tvister medger ett yrkande men samtidigt uttryckligen motsätter sig grunden för yrkandet. För det fall dom meddelas på grund av ett medgivande där grunden för yrkandet... (More)
- Inom den svenska civilprocessrätten kan svaranden välja att antingen medge eller bestrida kärandens yrkande. För det fall kärandens yrkande medges ska den prövande domstolen, i ett dispositivt mål, meddela dom med anledning av medgivandet utan att pröva grunden för yrkandet. Detta följer av dispositionsprincipen, vilken är en grundläggande princip som innebär att rätten inte får meddela dom över mer eller annat än vad parterna har yrkat. Vid ett medgivande av kärandens yrkande behöver svaranden inte samtidigt medge grunden för detta. Detta har medfört att svaranden i en del tvister medger ett yrkande men samtidigt uttryckligen motsätter sig grunden för yrkandet. För det fall dom meddelas på grund av ett medgivande där grunden för yrkandet uttryckligen bestrids uppkommer frågan om en sådan dom tillgodoser kärandens rätt till ett effektivt domstolsskydd.
Uppsatsen syftar till att undersöka den svenska civilprocessrättsliga regleringen kring medgivanden och hur denna förhåller sig till enskildas rätt till ett effektivt domstolsskydd. Rätten till ett effektivt domstolsskydd fastslås i såväl EU-rätten som i Europakonventionen. För att uppnå uppsatsens syfte undersöks huvudsakligen nationell rätt, men framställningen har även EU- och Europarättsliga inslag. För att besvara uppsatsens frågeställningar an-vänds den rättsdogmatiska metoden och de traditionella rättskällorna undersöks för att fastställa samt analysera gällande rätt.
Den rättsliga problematik som uppsatsen behandlar aktualiserades i Braathens-fallet, vilket i grunden var ett diskrimineringsmål. EU-domstolen lämnade ett förhandsavgörande i målet. Domstolen fann att det inte var förenligt med unionsrätten att meddela dom utan rättslig prövning då svaranden visserligen gick med på att betala diskrimineringsersättning men samtidigt bestred att den enskilde utsatts för diskriminering. EU-domstolens avgörande i Braathens-fallet föreskrev en skyldighet för nationella domstolar att på begäran av käranden pröva grunden för ett yrkande även då detta medgivits.
Den skyldighet som EU-domstolen ålade nationella domstolar är inte förenlig med dispositionsprincipen. Braathens-fallet medför även ett flertal oklarheter såsom huruvida det föreligger hinder för nationella domstolar att meddela dom utan prövning i andra mål än diskrimineringsmål. Det finns några alternativa tillvägagångssätt för hur de nationella domstolarna skulle kunna behandla problematiken som aktualiserades i Braathens-fallet. Inget av de möjliga tillvägagångssätten som undersökts i uppsatsen innebär, enligt min mening, en hållbar lösning som både värnar den nationella civilprocessrättsliga strukturen och samtidigt enskildas rätt till ett effektivt domstolsskydd. Uppsatsen visar att det finns ett flertal frågor med anledning av EU-domstolens avgörande i Braathens-fallet som borde adresseras inom ett lagstiftningsförfarande för att vidhålla en koherent rättstillämpning. (Less) - Abstract
- In Swedish civil procedure, the respondent can choose to either concede or contest the plaintiff's claim. If the plaintiff's claim is conceded, the court must, in a case amenable to out-of-court settlements, give judgment based on the respondent’s concession without examining the grounds for the claim. This follows from the dispositionsprincipen (principle of disposit-ion): a fundamental principle that the court may not give judgment on matters beyond that which the parties have brought forward. Although the plaintiff’s claim may be conceded, the respondent does not have to recognise the grounds for the claim. This has led to situations where the respon-dent concedes to a claim but simultaneously opposes the grounds of the claim... (More)
- In Swedish civil procedure, the respondent can choose to either concede or contest the plaintiff's claim. If the plaintiff's claim is conceded, the court must, in a case amenable to out-of-court settlements, give judgment based on the respondent’s concession without examining the grounds for the claim. This follows from the dispositionsprincipen (principle of disposit-ion): a fundamental principle that the court may not give judgment on matters beyond that which the parties have brought forward. Although the plaintiff’s claim may be conceded, the respondent does not have to recognise the grounds for the claim. This has led to situations where the respon-dent concedes to a claim but simultaneously opposes the grounds of the claim expressively. In the event that judgment is given in relation to a con-cession but the grounds of the claim have been expressly opposed by the respondent, the question that arises is whether such a judgment is enough to satisfy the plaintiff's right to effective judicial protection.
This paper aims to examine Swedish civil procedural law regarding concession and how this relates to the individual's right to effective judicial protection. The right to effective judicial protection is enshrined in EU law as well as the ECHR. This paper will mainly examine national laws, whilst also considering aspects of EU and European law. To investigate the quest-ions of this paper, the “legal-dogmatic method” is used to determine and analyse established law.
The legal issue this paper addresses first arose in the Braathens case, which was essentially a case of discrimination. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) gave a preliminary ruling stating that it is not in accordance with EU law to give judgments without judicial review just because the respondent has agreed to pay compensation for discrimination without conceding that the plaintiff has been discriminated against. The CJEU imposed an obligation on national courts to examine the merits of the claim at the request of the plaintiff, even though it had been conceded.
The obligation imposed by the CJEU on national courts is not compatible with the principle of disposition. The Braathens case also raises numerous uncertainties, such as whether national courts are precluded from pronouncing judgment after the respondent’s concession in cases other than discriminatory ones. There are some alternative approaches as to how national courts could deal with the issue raised in the Braathens case. In my view, none of the possible approaches explored in this paper provides a sustainable solution that safeguards the structure of national civil procedur-al law whilst also considering the individual’s right to effective judicial protection. This paper shows that several issues arise from the CJEU's de-cision in the Braathens case that should be addressed in a legislative pro-cess to maintain a coherent application of the law. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9180392
- author
- Ask, Emma LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- Access to judicial judgment in case of the respondent’s concession
- course
- JURM02 20242
- year
- 2024
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- civilrätt, EU-rätt, processrätt, dispositionsprincipen
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9180392
- date added to LUP
- 2025-01-24 11:19:47
- date last changed
- 2025-01-24 11:19:47
@misc{9180392,
abstract = {{In Swedish civil procedure, the respondent can choose to either concede or contest the plaintiff's claim. If the plaintiff's claim is conceded, the court must, in a case amenable to out-of-court settlements, give judgment based on the respondent’s concession without examining the grounds for the claim. This follows from the dispositionsprincipen (principle of disposit-ion): a fundamental principle that the court may not give judgment on matters beyond that which the parties have brought forward. Although the plaintiff’s claim may be conceded, the respondent does not have to recognise the grounds for the claim. This has led to situations where the respon-dent concedes to a claim but simultaneously opposes the grounds of the claim expressively. In the event that judgment is given in relation to a con-cession but the grounds of the claim have been expressly opposed by the respondent, the question that arises is whether such a judgment is enough to satisfy the plaintiff's right to effective judicial protection.
This paper aims to examine Swedish civil procedural law regarding concession and how this relates to the individual's right to effective judicial protection. The right to effective judicial protection is enshrined in EU law as well as the ECHR. This paper will mainly examine national laws, whilst also considering aspects of EU and European law. To investigate the quest-ions of this paper, the “legal-dogmatic method” is used to determine and analyse established law.
The legal issue this paper addresses first arose in the Braathens case, which was essentially a case of discrimination. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) gave a preliminary ruling stating that it is not in accordance with EU law to give judgments without judicial review just because the respondent has agreed to pay compensation for discrimination without conceding that the plaintiff has been discriminated against. The CJEU imposed an obligation on national courts to examine the merits of the claim at the request of the plaintiff, even though it had been conceded.
The obligation imposed by the CJEU on national courts is not compatible with the principle of disposition. The Braathens case also raises numerous uncertainties, such as whether national courts are precluded from pronouncing judgment after the respondent’s concession in cases other than discriminatory ones. There are some alternative approaches as to how national courts could deal with the issue raised in the Braathens case. In my view, none of the possible approaches explored in this paper provides a sustainable solution that safeguards the structure of national civil procedur-al law whilst also considering the individual’s right to effective judicial protection. This paper shows that several issues arise from the CJEU's de-cision in the Braathens case that should be addressed in a legislative pro-cess to maintain a coherent application of the law.}},
author = {{Ask, Emma}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Rätt till materiell prövning? - En analys av det civilprocessrättsliga medgivandets förhållande till enskildas rätt till ett effektivt domstolsskydd mot bakgrund av Braathens-fallet}},
year = {{2024}},
}