No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Damages have four main functions: reparation, placing of the costs, distribution of the losses and prevention. The rules about damages evolved before liability insurance had the extension it has today, 97 % of the Swedish populations is covered by liability insurance, since it is included in the comprehensive household insurance. Liability insurance should be looked at in the light of the damage rules, but the rules about damages are adapted to the insurance possibilities. The Law of damages contains, though the general adjustment article 6:2, the adjustment article 2:4 about children and the adjustment article 2:5 about the mentally ill, a possibility to adjust a non reasonable damage claim. If the liability insurance covers the damages no adjustment is made. Even when the adjustment articles are being used the damages is a heavy burden for the person who is liable for the damages. The liability insurance contains exemptions for damages caused by criminal actions amongst other things and therefore there is still a need for the adjustment articles. It is voluntary to have liability insurance for private individuals. The severity of the consequences for the person liable for the damages leads to that is should be involuntary, at least for children. This year a change was made to the Law of damages and the legal guardian of children is now, not only responsible for damages causes when they are negligent, but also in some situations absolute liable. The ground for the change is to clarify the legal guardian’s responsibilities and decrease delinquency. The change is an unjust divergence from damage principles and will not fulfill its purpose.

Globally, species are being eradicated at an accelerated rate, up to 1000 times faster than the rate of natural species loss. This is primarily due to the reduction and degradation of species habitats. As biodiversity decreases, ecosystems risk losing significant ecological processes and functions, such as natural water purification. As a response to this pressing environmental problem, the international community has set a goal of halting the loss of biological diversity by 2020. The objective of this thesis is to analyze the current legal protection for biological diversity in forests and demonstrate how the goal of halting the loss of biodiversity can be implemented through law.   In order to identify where legal measures might fall short of their goal or protecting biodiversity, the point of departure for this study has been to identify certain ecological structures of forest ecosystems that can be said to be of major importance for the conservation of biological diversity. The chosen structures represent not only levels on a spatial scale, but also reflect the need for separate regulatory techniques, if protection of biological diversity is to be formulated appropriately. One important legal issue addressed in this dissertation is how the legal protection of these ecological structures can be strengthened in relation to property rights. Furthermore, management of natural resources must address the complexity and uncertainties of ecosystems. How the legal system can meet such uncertainties, while ensuring legal certainty, is one of the topics addressed in this thesis. Adaptive management has been said to be a necessary tool for handling the complex and dynamic nature of ecosystems in the absence of complete knowledge or understanding of their functioning. Such management is also essential to handle the conflict of preserving biological diversity while meeting increasing demands on forest resources. By introducing legal requirements for adaptive environmental planning, I believe, the sustainable use of forest resources can more likely be ensured.

No description available.

I det här arbetet har vi jämfört ersättning vid expropriation mellan länderna Sverige och Kina. Expropriation är en tvångsåtgärd som medför att mark kan överföras med tvång från en fastighetsägare till en annan i syfte att tillgodose ett allmänt intresse. I både Sverige och Kina utgår ersättning när staten med tvång tar mark i anspråk och vi har studerat hur denna ersättning utgår samt vilka faktorer som påverkar ersättningens storlek i respektive land.  Arbetet behandlar vilken typ av ersättning som utgår, vem som har rätt till denna ersättning och hur stor denna ersättning är i Kina respektive Sverige. Arbetet går även in på vad för effekter de olika systemen kan ha på såväl en individnivå som en samhällsnivå. För att redogöra för detta har vi studerat vad lagstiftningen säger och hur den skiljer sig åt i de båda länderna. Ett expropriationsfall från Kina har även tagits med i jämförelsen för att erhålla en tydligare bild av skillnaderna och likheterna som finns i de båda ersättningssystemen.  Jämförelsen av Sverige och Kina har gett en förståelse för att ländernas ersättningssystem vid expropriation är väldigt olika men på ett övergripande plan ändå innehar en del likheter i sina grundläggande värderingar, såsom att ingen individ ska gå med ekonomisk förlust till följd av expropriation. De stora skillnaderna är hur de beräknar den ersättning som ska utgå vid expropriation samt hur denna ersättning erläggs. Arbetet uppmärksammar vad som är allra mest intressant angående det kinesiska ersättningssystemet, vilket är att ersättningen är standardiserad. Det standardiserade systemet innebär att fasta ersättningsvärden sätts för hela områden istället för att värdena bestäms för varje enskilt fall som det är i det svenska systemet. Det här leder till flera intressanta effekter för både samhället i stort men också för den enskilda individen. Avslutningsvis ges förslag på hur ett standardiserat system skulle kunna användas i Sverige för att uppnå högre effektivitet vid expropriativa åtgärder inom infrastrukturprojekt. / In this project, we have compared compensation in the event of expropriation between the two countries Sweden and China. Expropriation is a coercive measure that means that land can be transferred by force from one property owner to another in order to satisfy a public interest. In both Sweden and China, compensation is paid when the state forcibly claims land and we have studied how this compensation is paid and what factors affect the size of the compensation in each country. The project looks at what type of compensation is paid, who has the right to compensation and what the size of the compensation is. The project also discusses the effects that each system of compensation has on an individual level as well as on a societal level. To explain this we have studied what the law says in each country and looked at how it differs between the countries. An expropriation case from China has been included in order to gain a clearer picture of how expropriative procedures look like in China as well as to be able to point out differences and similarities between the two systems of compensation. The comparison between Sweden and China have resulted in an understanding that the countries systems for compensation in expropriative procedures differ a lot but on an overall level still holds a few similarities when it comes to fundamental values, such as that no individual should experience a financial loss due to expropriation. The big differences are in how the countries calculate the compensations to be paid as well as how this compensation is paid. The project pays attention to what is most interesting in regards to the Chinese system for compensation, which is that the compensation is standardized. The standardized system means that fixed compensation values are set for entire areas instead of the values being determined for each individual case as it is in the Swedish system. This leads to several interesting effects for both society at large but also for the individual. Finally, suggestions are given on how a standardized system could be used in Sweden to achieve higher efficiency in expropriative measures within infrastructure projects.

En av de grundläggande rättigheterna som tillerkänns den enskilde är egendomsskyddet. Denna rättighet är stadgad i regeringsformen. Ingrepp i den enskildes egendomsskydd medges om det syftar till att tillgodose ett angeläget allmänt intresse samt om inskränkningen klarar det test på proportionalitet som skapats genom praxis. Kravet på förvärvstillstånd i jordförvärvslagen är en typ av ingrepp i den enskildes egendomsskydd. Att den enskilde inte fritt kan förfoga över sin egendom genom att sälja den till vem han vill utgör ett sådant ingrepp. För att ingreppet ska anses vara proportionerligt krävs det att enskild ersätts genom att staten löser in fastigheten till det pris som avtalats. Inlösen vägras om priset skulle betydligt överstiga egendomens värde. Det är länsstyrelsen som har bevisbörda på att priset betydligt överstiger egendomens marknadsvärde med hänsyn till dess avkastning och marknadsvärdet på andra nyttigheter, till exempel eventuell jakträtt. Staten, genom länsstyrelsen, kräver att köpare sedan tidigare äger mark inom området för att kunna erhålla förvärvstillstånd. Detta är av länsstyrelsen själv uppställt krav som inte tydligt framgår vid en genomläsning av tillståndslagstiftning. I denna uppsats presenteras vilka konsekvenser en sådan marknadsbegränsning får på frågan om värdering av fastighet vid inlösen. Frågan ställs huruvida länsstyrelsen agerar i enlighet med lagen när, vid vägrat förvärvstillstånd fastigheten ej löses in till det pris där även eventuell jakträtt åsätts det marknadsmässiga värde som bedöms på en marknad som ej är begränsad. Frågan besvaras i uppsatsens avslutande kommentarer. / One of the fundamental rights conferred on the individual is the property protection. This fundamental right is enacted in the Swedish Constitution (Regeringsformen). Interference with a person’s right to his own property is allowed if it aims to meet a public interest and if it passes the test of proportionality created through practice. The requirement for an authorization to acquire property according the Swedish Land Acquisition Act (Jordförvärvslagen) is a type of interference with a person`s right to his own property. When the individual cannot freely dispose over his property by selling it to whoever he wants, is an example on such interference. In order to such a procedure be considered proportionate it requires that the Government (through the County Administrative Board) remunerates the individual at the price the parties (seller and buyer) agreed on. The Government`s obligation to remunerate falls if the price would significantly exceed the property`s value. It is the County Administrative Board that has the burden of proof that the price significantly exceeds the property`s market value with respect to its return and the market value of other utilities, such as hunting rights. The County Administrative Board requires that buyers already own property in the area in order to obtain such approvals. This is by the Board itself set up requirement that is not apparent when studying the state of law. This paper presents the implications of such a market restriction on the question on the valuation of the property at redemption. The question is whether the County Administrative Board acts in accordance with the state of law when, after not allowing the acquisition, the property is not redeemed at the price where even possible hunting rights are assigned the market value as assessed in a market that is not limited. The question is answered in the final comments of this paper.