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.