Processuell editionsplikt : Om avvägningen mellan editionsparternas intressen

Detta är en Uppsats för yrkesexamina på avancerad nivå från Stockholms universitet/Juridiska institutionen

Sammanfattning: Under the Swedish regulation on procedural duty of disclosure, it has long been the case that three requirements must be fulfilled in order for the court to be able to issue an order to release a document: the document must be in writing, the counterparty must possess the document and it has to be assumed that the document have significance as evidence. In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court stated that the courts also should weigh the interests of the parties (on one hand, the relevance of the evidence, and, on the other hand, the counterparty’s interest in not disclosing the information). The latter requirement has been criticized for its unforeseeable nature. Neither the Supreme Court nor the legislature have clarified the manner in which the courts should weigh the interests of the parties.      The aim of this thesis is to clarify how the courts shall carry out the weighing of interests. The legal method will be applied in order to achieve the purpose. A majority of the material used in this thesis consist of statements in the legal literature. Unfortunately, there is generally a shortage of material. Rulings from lower courts will therefore be used to some extent.      The aforementioned weighing of interests constitutes a proportionality test. This proportionality test applies accordingly with regard to other coercive measures such as freezing orders. Sources of law dealing with the weighing of interests with respect to other coercive measures may therefore form a basis for the analysis.       It is merely possible to give general instructions regarding the manner in which the proportionality test should be carried out. The courts ought to reject a claim for disclosure if an approval would have led to severe consequences for the counterparty. A court could however, in spite of eventual minor consequences suffered by the counterparty, sustain a claim for procedural disclosure if the documents have high value as evidence.

  HÄR KAN DU HÄMTA UPPSATSEN I FULLTEXT. (följ länken till nästa sida)