Eftergift trots laga kraft? - En studie av "sakens" betydelse vid tillämpning av 113 kap. 7 § 2 st. SFB

Sammanfattning: The Swedish Social Insurance Agency in Sweden is responsible for paying out social security insurance to individuals. There are times when these payments need to be corrected, and the agency then needs to reclaim the paid-out amounts. Before a repayment claim can be initiated, the Swedish Social Insurance Agency must answer two key questions: Is there a repayment obligation? Is it possible to grant a remission for the amount? If the agency decides not to grant a remission, the repayment obligation is determined by a repayment claim decision, which becomes legally binding within two months. An interesting question that arises when the decision becomes legally binding is the following: Can the individual apply for remission again after the repayment claim decision has become legally binding? The question is interesting because it concerns negative legal force. When a repayment claim decision becomes legally binding, a specific rule of negative legal force in Chapter 113, article 7, paragraph 2 of the Social Insurance Code (2010:110) is triggered. This provision is unique because it differs from administrative law's general handling of negative legal force issues. The requirement is more similar to the rules of negative legal force in the Code of Judicial Procedure (1942:740) in that it becomes important to determine what constitutes "the matter” at issue. According to Chapter 113, article 7, paragraph 2 of the Social Insurance Code, negative legal force means that the Swedish Social Insurance Agency is prevented from re-examining "the same matter" that has already been examined before. To assess what may be re-examined and what may not be re-examined, the agency thus has to determine what constitutes "the same matter." The question of whether the individual can apply for remission again depends on whether the application concerns the same "matter" or not. There is no legislation or practice for how "the matter" is determined within administrative law. However, principles have been developed in court practice to determine "the matter." These principles are similar to the theories developed within procedural law, where Olivecrona determines "the matter" based on the course of events, and Ekelöf defines "the matter" based on the legal consequence. From the Supreme Administrative Court's practice in the field of social security insurance, the majority of cases suggest that "the matter" is determined based on the course of events, which is in line with Olivecrona's theory. Furthermore, there is only one case that specifically dealt with the question of "the matter" in a repayment claim situation, namely RÅ 2010 ref. 1. In this case, the term "course of events" is explicitly used as guidance to determine "the matter." This case is also the most recent in which the Supreme Administrative Court has assessed the question of "the matter" in the field of social security insurance. Given this, I draw the conclusion that the course of events most likely determines "the matter" in a repayment claim situation when applying Chapter 113, article 7, paragraph 2 of the Social Insurance Code. This conclusion implies that it is possible for an individual to apply for and be granted remission, even after the repayment claim decision has become legally binding. This requires, however, that there (i) exist circumstances that can be qualified as special reasons and (ii) that these circumstances were either not known when the matter was first examined or did not occur at the time.