Individens rätt till rättvis rättegång inom skälig tid har sedan 1951 funnits i Europakonventionens mänskliga fri- och rättigheter, EMRK, för att försäkra individen om den grundläggande rätten. Rättsläget ser ut som sådant att Sverige inte alltid lyckas uppfylla konventionens innehåll, då flera mål varje år förenas med oskäligt långa väntetider mellan förundersökning till slutdom. Uppsatsens syfte är att utreda hur svenska domstolar beaktar artikel 6.1 EMRK, varför rätten till rättvis rättegång inte har fått grundlagsstatus hittills i Sverige samt i vilken utsträckning de rättigheter i artikel 6.1 EMRK återfinns i svensk rätt. Syftet är även att besvara varför grundlagsreformeringen kan ha en positiv inverkan på rättsläget. EMRK inkorporerades i svensk rätt 1995, då uppkom en diskussion om den nya lagens rättsliga status, men det avgjordes snabbt att lagen inte skulle få grundlagskydd. Ett starkt argument bakom beslutet var att det i sådana fall skulle innebära dubbelreglering på ett antal rättigheter som redan stadgades i regeringsformen. Författaren tror att rätten till rättegång inom skälig tid föll bort som en följd av regeringens argument, vilket idag orsakar ett antal konventionsbrott i Sverige. Staten är skyldig att gottgöra för konventionsbrotten enligt artikel 13 EMRK, genom att vidta åtgärder som en följd av brottet. Genom tiden har ett antal åtgärder uppkommit genom praxis, som ett komplement till lag för att gottgöra för de brott som begås på området. Utöver de kompensationsalternativ som diskuteras i uppsatsen finns lagen om förtursförklaring i domstol, där tanken är att mål som har dröjt oskäligt länge ska kunna förtursförklaras av domstol, detta för att gottgöra för förseningen innan det är för sent. Tillämpning av det alternativet skulle då leda till att ingen kompensation behöver utgå, då det i slutändan inte blir tal om ett konventionsbrott. Propositionen ”En reformerad grundlag” är planerad att träda ikraft 2011, ifall förslaget röstas igenom för en andra gång. Däri stadgas bland mycket annat rätten till rättvis rättegång inom skälig tid. En reformering är enligt författaren en långsiktig lösning på problemet. Reformeringen kan resultera i minskning av antalet brott, vilket skulle innebära färre skadeståndsanspråk mot staten. Den planerade reformeringen är därmed enligt författaren nödvändig för att värna om medborgarnas grundläggande fri- och rättigheter, vilket borde vara en självklarhet för en demokratisk rättsstat som Sverige.

EU:s inre marknad med fri rörlighet för bland annat varor har skapat ett ökat handelsutbyte över gränserna även för konsumenter. När en tvist uppstår i ett konsumentavtal med internationell karaktär är frågan bland annat vilken lag som ska tillämpas på tvisten. Inom EU regleras lagvalsfrågan i Rom I-förordningen. Enligt huvudregeln i artikel 6.1 i Rom I-förordningen ska lagen i landet där konsumenten har sin vanliga vistelseort tillämpas. I artikel 6.2 i Rom I-förordningen ges parterna möjligheten att göra ett gemensamt lagval, dock med begränsningen att det inte får vara till nackdel för konsumenten jämfört med huvudregeln. Ett tolkningsproblem uppstår då den partsvalda lagen till vissa delar är till nackdel för konsumenten, men till fördel i andra delar. Ett sätt att lösa tolkningsproblemet är genom en tillämpning av den så kallade russinteorin. Konsumenten tillåts då att välja de för honom mest gynnsamma reglerna ur respektive lag och därigenom skapa ett mycket långtgående skydd som inte kan erhållas enligt någon nationell rättsordning. Alternativet är att lösa problemet genom att en lag tillämpas på hela avtalet. Konsumenten väljer då en regel ur någon av lagarna och den lagen blir därigenom tillämplig på hela avtalet. Frågan är vilken av tolkningsmetoderna som kan anses mest lämplig för att lösa problemet med tillämpningen av artikel 6.2. För att besvara frågan har en analys av respektive alternativ gjorts. Dessutom har tre tolkningsmetoder från EU-domstolen använts för att utröna vilket tolkningsalternativ som är mest lämpligt. Både russinteorin och alternativet med en lag har både för- och nackdelar. Russinteorin ger ett mer långtgående skydd för konsumenten och för därför också med sig stora nackdelar för näringsidkaren och möjliga negativa effekter på den inre marknaden. Alternativet med en lag ger inte ett lika långtgående skydd, det är dock tillräckligt med en lag för att överensstämma med målen om att skydda konsumenten. Nackdelarna för näringsidkaren är inte lika många eller omfattande och den inre marknaden bör inte heller påverkas i någon större utsträckning av alternativet. Sammantaget leder tolkningsmetoderna från EU-domstolen till att alternativet med en lag som tillämpas på hela avtalet anses som den bästa lösningen på tolkningsproblemet i artikel 6.2 i Rom I-förordningen.

No description available.

No description available.

Denna uppsats syftar till att analysera det tänkta klimatsamarbetet mellan Sverige och Ghana som möjliggörs av Parisavtalets artikel 6. Sverige har en uttalad politisk ambition om att nå sina nationella klimatmål med hjälp av utsläppsminskningar i andra länder. Sverige och Ghana skrev under ett samförståndsavtal på COP26 i Glasgow där de deklarerar sitt intresse för samarbete i genomförandet av Parisavtalets artikel 6. Därtill har en fiktiv pilotstudie utformats för att ge exempel på vilken typ av aktivitet detta samarbete skulle kunna leda till. Genom en kvalitativ innehållsanalys visar denna uppsats att samarbetet har två syften: dels att leda till reella utsläppsminskningar, dels att ta en ledande roll i hur samarbeten under artikel 6 kan utformas. Utifrån Franz Scharpfs (1999) definition av input- och outputlegitimitet, visar uppsatsen att samarbetet rymmer flera viktiga legitimitetsdimensioner som att involvera privata och statliga aktörer för att säkerställa ett transparent och rättvist samarbete som leder till reella utsläppsminskningar. Det är dock oklart hur ansvar från de olika aktörerna ska kunna utkrävas och hur Sverige kommer använda sig av utsläppsreduktionerna för att nå sitt 2045-mål om nettonollutsläp / This thesis aims to examine the proposed climate cooperation between Sweden and Ghana under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. Sweden has expressed a political ambition to achieve its climate goals through emission reductions beyond its borders. Sweden and Ghana signed a Memorandum of Understanding in November 2021 during COP26 in Glasgow, in which they express an interest in cooperating for the implementation of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. In addition, a virtual pilot study has been developed proposing the type of activity this cooperation could generate. Through a qualitative content analysis, the thesis shows that the cooperation has two objectives: firstly, to lead to real emission reductions and secondly, to set an example for how cooperation under Article 6 can be carried out. Based on Franz Scharpf’s (1999) conception of input and output legitimacy, the thesis also demonstrates that the cooperation contains several important legitimacy dimensions such as involving private and public actors to ensure a transparent and just process with real mitigation outcomes. However, it remains unclear how this will ensure the accountability of all actors and how Sweden will use the project to achieve its 2045 net-zero emissions goal.

Swedish environmental law stipulates an extensive obligation to provide information to regulatory authorities. This obligation can also be combined with different penalties. This is concerning in cases where an individual has committed a crime. On one hand the refusal to provide information might result in penalties, on the other hand the individual risks self-incrimination. Thus, the obligation to provide information in Swedish environmental law raises a fundamental problem in procedural law, namely the contradiction between efficiency and procedural safeguards. A reasonable balance is required between the two interests. How this balance is to be made, however, is neither stated in law nor in the legal literature. The aim of this paper is therefore to analyse if the obligation to provide information in Swedish environmental law violates the right against self-incrimination. To achieve the purpose of the paper, the applicable law must initially be determined. The legal situation is described by mapping, systematizing, and interpreting relevant sources of law. These sources are mainly Swedish law, legislative history, case law and legal literature. The material is assigned a decreasing value in the order as just mentioned, where law is given the highest value. The analysis also includes some material that traditionally does not fall into any of the mentioned categories. This material is assigned a value after an assessment of its quality. Furthermore, the paper takes an internal comparative perspective since Swedish rules are compared with each other. The paper shows that the right against self-incrimination includes both a right to be silent and a right to be passive. Furthermore, the right only becomes relevant when someone is accused of a crime, as stated in article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the paper reveals that it is possible for someone to be accused of a crime in Swedish environmental law, and thereby the right against self-incrimination is actualised. Moreover, it is concluded that the very existence of the environmental law's obligation to provide information does not conflict with the right against self-incrimination. However, there is a risk of violation in individual cases. At present, Swedish law does not allow authorities to combine an injunction with fines when it can be suspected that a crime has been committed. However, there is no legislation regarding the other penalties available to the authorities, even though these penalties can be equated with fines in many cases. In conclusion the paper indicates that the obligation to provide information in Swedish environmental law risks conflicting with the right against self-incrimination in individual cases. This is mainly the case when the obligation is combined with a penalty and there is a suspicion of crime.

No description available.

In Sweden, camera surveillance in places where the public own access is regulated by a permit. This entails a lack of permit requirement for camera surveillance in places where the public does not own access. Such places can consist of a privacy- sensitive character. Surveillance constitutes processing of personal data where- upon the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) must be complied with.Article 6 of the GDPR stipulates various legal bases that must be met in the processing of personal data. The ones who conduct surveillance in places where the public does not own access often fails to make correct legal assessments of Article 6(1)(e) and 6(1)(f) of the GDPR, as displayed by various supervisory de- cisions issued by the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection. In this light, the purpose of the thesis is to examine and analyze how the ones who conduct sur- veillance and the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection consider the personal integrity of the camera monitored individual in the assessments of Article 6(1)(e) and 6(1)(f) of the GDPR during camera surveillance without permit requirement in places where the public does not own access. Because of the differences be- tween the legal assessments made by the ones who conduct camera surveillance and the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection, the thesis also intends to shed light on the consequences that arise for the camera monitored individual by the fact that their personal integrity is assessed in different ways.The thesis also aims to evaluate the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protec- tions’ supervisory work in relation to both personal integrity and the compliance with Article 6(1)(e) and 6(1)(f) of the GDPR during camera surveillance without permit requirement in places where the public does not own access. The Swedish Authority for Privacy Protections’ supervisory work is important as most of the camera surveillance takes place without a permit requirement and the fact that there is a lack of knowledge prevailing to the number of cameras in use. It is important that the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protections’ supervisory work is well-functioning since the ones who conduct surveillance carry out the legal assessments incorrectly. The risk with insufficient supervisory work is that per- sonal integrity is violated and that the GDPR is ineffectual in the long run.In general, it can be said that the legal assessments of Article 6(1)(e) and 6(1)(f) of the GDPR are poorly carried out by both the ones who conduct surveillance and the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection. This primarily affects the cam- era monitored individuals’ personal integrity. Because of the indications of short- comings in the supervisory work, there are several improvement measures that can be taken to maintain personal integrity and ensure that the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection continue to constitute an important function.

Equality before the law and equal access to justice are fundamental rights in a modern state governed by the rule of law. Access to justice refers to the essential notion that all people have the right to legal protection and a jucidial remedy and that no practical, legal or other obstacles should prevent individuals from exercising their rights. The main facets that constitute the essence of access to justice is the right to access to court, involving a right to effective access to a fair and public hearing for everyone. Applied to criminal proceedings, this includes the right to equality of arms and practical and effective legal representation, if it is needed in order to ensure effective access to court.  Access to justice as a fundamental right covers several European legal principles, the right to a fair trial in article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms being the main focus. The provision aims particularly on the person being suspected of a crime. However, the overall principle of the right to a fair trial and access to justice also includes the victim of a crime. This means that the rights deriving from access to justice also must be respected in regards of the injured party.  In order for the injured party to be able to exercice his or her rights under access to justice, the rights for the victim under Swedish law must provide him or her with sufficient conditions for doing so. The injured party may, inter alia, institute a private claim for compensation in criminal proceedings as well as under certain conditions file an action in accordance with the rules on private prosecution. The police and public prosecutor have an obligation to inform the injured party on his or her rights. The victim of a serious crime may have the right to be represented by a counsel. The right to counsel for the injured party does not correspond to the suspect’s right do defense counsel, which can result in failure to ensure equality of arms between the victim and the suspect. A procedural imbalance that favors one of the parties at the expense of the other may cause that his or her right to access to justice is denied. In general, being represented by a counsel for the injured party increases the victim's chances of defending his or her rights in accordance with access to justice.

In Sweden, camera surveillance in places where the public own access is regulated by a permit. This entails a lack of permit requirement for camera surveillance in places where the public does not own access. Such places can consist of a privacy-sensitive character. Surveillance constitutes processing of personal data whereupon the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) must be complied with.  Article 6 of the GDPR stipulates various legal bases that must be met in the processing of personal data. The ones who conduct surveillance in places where the public does not own access often fails to make correct legal assessments of Article 6(1)(e) and 6(1)(f) of the GDPR, as displayed by various supervisory decisions issued by the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection. In this light, the purpose of the thesis is to examine and analyze how the ones who conduct surveillance and the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection consider the personal integrity of the camera monitored individual in the assessments of Article 6(1)(e) and 6(1)(f) of the GDPR during camera surveillance without permit requirement in places where the public does not own access. Because of the differences between the legal assessments made by the ones who conduct camera surveillance and the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection, the thesis also intends to shed light on the consequences that arise for the camera monitored individual by the fact that their personal integrity is assessed in different ways. The thesis also aims to evaluate the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protections’ supervisory work in relation to both personal integrity and the compliance with Article 6(1)(e) and 6(1)(f) of the GDPR during camera surveillance without permit requirement in places where the public does not own access. The Swedish Authority for Privacy Protections’ supervisory work is important as most of the camera surveillance takes place without a permit requirement and the fact that there is a lack of knowledge prevailing to the number of cameras in use. It is important that the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protections’ supervisory work is well-functioning since the ones who conduct surveillance carry out the legal assessments incorrectly. The risk with insufficient supervisory work is that personal integrity is violated and that the GDPR is ineffectual in the long run. In general, it can be said that the legal assessments of Article 6(1)(e) and 6(1)(f) of the GDPR are poorly carried out by both the ones who conduct surveillance and the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection. This primarily affects the camera monitored individuals’ personal integrity. Because of the indications of shortcomings in the supervisory work, there are several improvement measures that can be taken to maintain personal integrity and ensure that the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection continue to constitute an important function.