Att identifiera en handling - En utredning av identifikationskravet vid processuell edition
(2025) LAGF03 20251Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract
- Civil proceedings under Swedish law are based on the adversarial principle which means that the litigants have the primary responsibility for presenting evidence that supports their case. In Chapter 38 of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure there is an exception to this principle. It enables parties in an ongoing civil litigation to gain access to written evidence that is in the possession of the opposing party, if the documents can be assumed to have importance as evidence in the case. However, for the court to order the production of documents, the petitioner’s claim must meet a few necessary requirements. This paper focuses on one of these requirements that forces the petitioner to identify the documents that are included in the... (More)
- Civil proceedings under Swedish law are based on the adversarial principle which means that the litigants have the primary responsibility for presenting evidence that supports their case. In Chapter 38 of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure there is an exception to this principle. It enables parties in an ongoing civil litigation to gain access to written evidence that is in the possession of the opposing party, if the documents can be assumed to have importance as evidence in the case. However, for the court to order the production of documents, the petitioner’s claim must meet a few necessary requirements. This paper focuses on one of these requirements that forces the petitioner to identify the documents that are included in the request.
The demand for identification is often difficult to fulfill since most petitioners don't know what documents the respondent possesses. Therefore, the Swedish Supreme Court has enabled the petitioner to meet the demand by specifying a category of documents or accurately describing a theme of proof. However, it is not given what these ways of specifying a document actually entail and this allows for extensive interpretations of the demand for identification. Before approving a vague request for documents the courts must therefore weigh the petitioner’s interest for an administration of justice against the protection of the respondent’s personal integrity. When considering the respondent’s interest the indirect prohibition against aimless investigations (also known as fishing expeditions) is brought into force to protect the respondent from infringements in the private sphere.
A petition can only meet the demand for identification if it’s clear when the respondent has completed the order for production of documents; other than that, there is no way of defining a precise petition which results in a fairly wide margin for interpretation. The courts must therefore assess if the petition meets the demand for identification or not based on the circumstances in the specific case. Therefore, the petitioner should provide all the known elements that could limit the scope of the order for the production of documents to increase the chances of the court approving their petition. (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- Det svenska kontradiktoriska tvistemålsförfarandet bygger på tanken att parterna har det primära ansvaret för att lägga fram bevisning till stöd för sin talan. Ett undantag till den här principen finns i regeln om processuell edition i 38 kap. RB, vilket gör det möjligt för en part att framtvinga skriftliga handlingar som innehas av motparten och kan ha betydelse som bevis i en pågående tvist. För att domstolen ska meddela ett editionsföreläggande krävs det emellertid att editionssökanden uppfyller en rad editionsförutsättningar. Denna uppsats fokuserar på en av editionsförutsättningarna – identifikationskravet – som innebär att editionssökanden måste identifiera vilka handlingar som efterfrågas.
Eftersom editionssökanden ofta inte... (More) - Det svenska kontradiktoriska tvistemålsförfarandet bygger på tanken att parterna har det primära ansvaret för att lägga fram bevisning till stöd för sin talan. Ett undantag till den här principen finns i regeln om processuell edition i 38 kap. RB, vilket gör det möjligt för en part att framtvinga skriftliga handlingar som innehas av motparten och kan ha betydelse som bevis i en pågående tvist. För att domstolen ska meddela ett editionsföreläggande krävs det emellertid att editionssökanden uppfyller en rad editionsförutsättningar. Denna uppsats fokuserar på en av editionsförutsättningarna – identifikationskravet – som innebär att editionssökanden måste identifiera vilka handlingar som efterfrågas.
Eftersom editionssökanden ofta inte besitter någon ingående kunskap om vilka handlingar motparten innehar är det dock inte alltid helt oproblematiskt att uppfylla identifikationskravet. För att göra det enklare har Högsta domstolen gjort det möjligt för sökanden att uppfylla kravet genom att i sitt yrkande ange en handlingskategori eller ett noga angivet bevistema. Vad de här identifikationskriterierna innebär är inte helt självklart i HD:s praxis vilket möjliggör för extensiva tolkningar av editionsförutsättningen. Innan domstolarna bifaller ett vagt yrkande måste dessutom en intresseavvägning göras mellan editionssökandens rättsskipningsintresse och skyddet för editionssvarandens personliga integritet. Vid beaktande av motpartens intresse aktualiseras det indirekta förbudet mot planlösa efterforskningar (s.k. fishing expeditions), vilket skyddar editionssvaranden från omfattande intrång i den privata sfären.
Identifikationskravet ställer upp ett minimikrav på att yrkandet ska vara precist nog för att det ska vara tydligt om editionssvaranden har fullgjort föreläggandet. Utöver det finns det ingen skarp gräns mellan ett precist och oprecist yrkande vilket medför ett relativt stort tolkningsutrymme. I slutändan handlar det därför om att domstolen, i varje enskilt fall, ska bedöma om yrkandet uppfylller kravet på identifikation utifrån rådande omständigheter. Det framstår följaktligen som en självklarhet att sökanden ska ange så många faktorer som möjligt för att begränsa yrkandet och därmed öka chansen till bifall. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9190187
- author
- Johansson, Tuva LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20251
- year
- 2025
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- processrätt, civilrätt, edition, editionsföreläggande, bevisupptagning, bevisning, civil procedure
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9190187
- date added to LUP
- 2025-06-23 13:02:51
- date last changed
- 2025-06-23 13:02:51
@misc{9190187,
abstract = {{Civil proceedings under Swedish law are based on the adversarial principle which means that the litigants have the primary responsibility for presenting evidence that supports their case. In Chapter 38 of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure there is an exception to this principle. It enables parties in an ongoing civil litigation to gain access to written evidence that is in the possession of the opposing party, if the documents can be assumed to have importance as evidence in the case. However, for the court to order the production of documents, the petitioner’s claim must meet a few necessary requirements. This paper focuses on one of these requirements that forces the petitioner to identify the documents that are included in the request.
The demand for identification is often difficult to fulfill since most petitioners don't know what documents the respondent possesses. Therefore, the Swedish Supreme Court has enabled the petitioner to meet the demand by specifying a category of documents or accurately describing a theme of proof. However, it is not given what these ways of specifying a document actually entail and this allows for extensive interpretations of the demand for identification. Before approving a vague request for documents the courts must therefore weigh the petitioner’s interest for an administration of justice against the protection of the respondent’s personal integrity. When considering the respondent’s interest the indirect prohibition against aimless investigations (also known as fishing expeditions) is brought into force to protect the respondent from infringements in the private sphere.
A petition can only meet the demand for identification if it’s clear when the respondent has completed the order for production of documents; other than that, there is no way of defining a precise petition which results in a fairly wide margin for interpretation. The courts must therefore assess if the petition meets the demand for identification or not based on the circumstances in the specific case. Therefore, the petitioner should provide all the known elements that could limit the scope of the order for the production of documents to increase the chances of the court approving their petition.}},
author = {{Johansson, Tuva}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Att identifiera en handling - En utredning av identifikationskravet vid processuell edition}},
year = {{2025}},
}