Utvidgat förverkande & Europadomstolen – En autonom tolkning

Sammanfattning: My graduate essay deals with the Swedish provision of extended confiscation in article 1 b, chapter 36 of the Swedish penal code. In the event that an offender commits one of the stipulated crimes in article 1 b chapter 36, the state may with a lower burden of proof then beyond reasonable doubt, confiscate profits from criminal activities, which do not stem from the perpetratory crime itself. There is no external time limit for what property may be confiscated, which means that there may be a time span of, for example, 15 years between when the offender commits one of the stipulated crimes mentioned in the article 1 b and the property was acquired by the perpetrator. This is a state effective remedy in the fight against organized crime. Against this background, I have analysed whether the Swedish provision is in conflict with the article 6(1) and (2) and article 7 of the ECHR, and how extended confiscation is applied by the ECtHR, with focus on the provisions in article 6(1) and (2) and article 7 of the ECHR. Conclusively the member states of the ECHR are given quite an extensive independence regarding the regulation of extended confiscation by the ECtHR. This puts the individuals safeguards in, what I regard, as quite a desperate state. An interesting observation is that article 7 ECHR could possibly conflict with the Swedish regulation, since the Swedish regulation in that the ECtHR hasn’t tried that specific area.