Förutsebara fysiska ingripanden? En analys av 5 kap. 6 § skollagen utifrån ett rättssäkerhetsperspektiv
(2026) LAGF03 20261Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Fysiska ingripanden är sedan 2022 i 5 kap. 6 § Skollagen (2010:800) uttryckligen tillåten som en disciplinär åtgärd. Befogenheten hade innan det vuxit fram genom rättspraxis. Trots nämnda lagändring har det bland delar av skolpersonalen uttryckts osäkerhet kring dess tillämpning. Uppsatsen syftar till att reda ut i vilken grad denna osäkerhet är sprungen ur en oklarhet i rättsregelns utformning, vilket görs med en rättsdogmatisk metod. Dessutom ställer uppsatsen frågan vilka krav som kan ställas på rättsregler för att de ska anses vara rättssäkra. Den frågan besvaras med Åke Frändbergs teori om rättssäkerhet utifrån rättsligt grundad förutsebarhet.
Disciplinära åtgärder grundar sig framför allt på tillsynsplikten av barn, där skolan har... (More) - Fysiska ingripanden är sedan 2022 i 5 kap. 6 § Skollagen (2010:800) uttryckligen tillåten som en disciplinär åtgärd. Befogenheten hade innan det vuxit fram genom rättspraxis. Trots nämnda lagändring har det bland delar av skolpersonalen uttryckts osäkerhet kring dess tillämpning. Uppsatsen syftar till att reda ut i vilken grad denna osäkerhet är sprungen ur en oklarhet i rättsregelns utformning, vilket görs med en rättsdogmatisk metod. Dessutom ställer uppsatsen frågan vilka krav som kan ställas på rättsregler för att de ska anses vara rättssäkra. Den frågan besvaras med Åke Frändbergs teori om rättssäkerhet utifrån rättsligt grundad förutsebarhet.
Disciplinära åtgärder grundar sig framför allt på tillsynsplikten av barn, där skolan har ansvar för barnens säkerhet och trygghet. Denna plikt medför också att personal inte alltid kan låta bli att ingripa. All skolpersonal har befogenheten att vidta omedelbara och tillfälliga åtgärder för att säkerställa trygghet och studiero. Särskilt fysiska ingripanden får företas för att avvärja våld, kränkningar och andra ordningsstörningar. Ett ingripande måste dock stå i rimlig proportion till sitt syfte och övriga omständigheter. Det innebär bland annat att mindre ingripande åtgärder alltid ska användas i första hand. Vissa handlingar, som till sin natur är av bestraffande karaktär eller når upp till straffbestämmelsen om misshandel, kan aldrig tillåtas som disciplinär åtgärd.
Slutsatsen som dras i diskussionen är att det finns vissa brister i utformningen av befogenheten, som gör tillämpningen mindre förutsebar, särskilt vad gäller proportionalitetsbedömningen. Samtidigt finns det andra klara gränser för vad som kan tillåtas. Sammantaget dras slutsatsen att befogenheten, trots sina brister, inte ska anses alltför oförutsebar så att den inte skulle vara godtagbar som rättsregel. (Less) - Abstract
- Physical interventions have since 2022 been explicitly permitted as a disciplinary measure under Chapter 5, Section 6 of the Education Act (2010:800). The authority had before this developed through case law. Despite this change in the law, some of the school staff have expressed uncertainty about how to apply it. This thesis aims to investigate to what extent this uncertainty comes from unclear wording in the legal rule, which is done by using a legal dogmatic method. Furthermore, the thesis asks what requirements can be placed on legal rules so they can be considered to have a legal certainty. This question is answered by using Åke Frändberg’s theory of legal certainty based on predictability.
Disciplinary measures are primarily based... (More) - Physical interventions have since 2022 been explicitly permitted as a disciplinary measure under Chapter 5, Section 6 of the Education Act (2010:800). The authority had before this developed through case law. Despite this change in the law, some of the school staff have expressed uncertainty about how to apply it. This thesis aims to investigate to what extent this uncertainty comes from unclear wording in the legal rule, which is done by using a legal dogmatic method. Furthermore, the thesis asks what requirements can be placed on legal rules so they can be considered to have a legal certainty. This question is answered by using Åke Frändberg’s theory of legal certainty based on predictability.
Disciplinary measures are primarily based on the duty of care for children, where the school is responsible for the children's safety and security. This duty also means that staff cannot always avoid intervening. All school staff have the authority to take immediate and temporary measures to ensure safety and a calm study environment. Specifically, physical interventions may be used to prevent violence, harassment, and other disruptions. However, an intervention must be in proportion to its purpose and other circumstances. This means, among other things, that less severe measures must always be used first. Certain actions that are punishing by nature, or fall under the legal definition of assault, can never be allowed as a disciplinary measure.
The conclusion drawn in the discussion is that there are certain flaws in how the authority is formulated, which makes it less predictable, especially regarding the assessment of proportionality. At the same time, there are other clear limits for what is allowed. Overall, the conclusion is that the authority, despite its flaws, should not be seen as so unpredictable that it becomes unacceptable. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9228007
- author
- Högberg, Viktor LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20261
- year
- 2026
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- förvaltningsrätt, utbildningsrätt, skolrätt, skollagen, fysiska ingripanden, disciplinära åtgärder
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9228007
- date added to LUP
- 2026-08-25 11:33:49
- date last changed
- 2026-08-25 11:33:49
@misc{9228007,
abstract = {{Physical interventions have since 2022 been explicitly permitted as a disciplinary measure under Chapter 5, Section 6 of the Education Act (2010:800). The authority had before this developed through case law. Despite this change in the law, some of the school staff have expressed uncertainty about how to apply it. This thesis aims to investigate to what extent this uncertainty comes from unclear wording in the legal rule, which is done by using a legal dogmatic method. Furthermore, the thesis asks what requirements can be placed on legal rules so they can be considered to have a legal certainty. This question is answered by using Åke Frändberg’s theory of legal certainty based on predictability.
Disciplinary measures are primarily based on the duty of care for children, where the school is responsible for the children's safety and security. This duty also means that staff cannot always avoid intervening. All school staff have the authority to take immediate and temporary measures to ensure safety and a calm study environment. Specifically, physical interventions may be used to prevent violence, harassment, and other disruptions. However, an intervention must be in proportion to its purpose and other circumstances. This means, among other things, that less severe measures must always be used first. Certain actions that are punishing by nature, or fall under the legal definition of assault, can never be allowed as a disciplinary measure.
The conclusion drawn in the discussion is that there are certain flaws in how the authority is formulated, which makes it less predictable, especially regarding the assessment of proportionality. At the same time, there are other clear limits for what is allowed. Overall, the conclusion is that the authority, despite its flaws, should not be seen as so unpredictable that it becomes unacceptable.}},
author = {{Högberg, Viktor}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Förutsebara fysiska ingripanden? En analys av 5 kap. 6 § skollagen utifrån ett rättssäkerhetsperspektiv}},
year = {{2026}},
}