Den 1 januari 2015 trädde en del ändringar i plan- och bygglagen i kraft. Detta då den dåvarande regeringen ville uppnå en effektivare planprocess, för att öka bebyggandet i riket. Lagändringen påverkade planprocessen samt förutsättningarna till upprättandet av genomförandeavtal. Genom övergångsbestämmelserna lades dock ett förbehåll in, för att reglera i vilka situationer äldre lagstiftning skulle användas. Detta förbehåll är att en detaljplan ska vara ”påbörjad” innan 1 januari 2015. Denna studie syftar till att undersöka när en detaljplan är ”påbörjad”.  Studien grundar sig på att nu gällande plan- och bygglag (fortsatt kallat PBL) samt tillämpningen av denna undersöks utifrån olika metoder. För att tolka juridiken kring begreppet, har ett rättsdogmatiskt förhållningssätt använts genom olika tolkningsmetoder. För att få en förståelse för hur juridiken tillämpas har ett rättssociologiskt förhållningssätt nyttjats. Detta har skett genom att en enkätundersökning utförts, där Sveriges samtliga kommuner tillfrågats hur de tolkar begreppet.  Undersökningen har påvisat att begreppet ”påbörjats” är oklart. I PBL regleras inte vad en ”påbörjad” detaljplan är. De definitioner som Boverket och regeringen har tagit fram är oklart formulerade. Den enkätundersökning som skickades ut till alla Sveriges kommuner gav ett varierande resultat som styrker teorin om att begreppet ”påbörjad” detaljplan är oklart. De befintliga definitionerna är i behov av förtydligande, för att likrikta kommuners tillämpning av dessa övergångsregler. Enkätundersökningen visade att 67 % av kommunerna tolkat begreppet ”påbörjad” efter de definitioner som Boverket samt regeringen utformat. Det som också framkommit genom studien är att skillnaderna i PBL innan och efter 1 januari 2015 är stora, vilket bland annat innebär att kommunens förutsättningar att upprätta detaljplaner och exploateringsavtal har förändrats. / 1st of January 2015 some changes were made in the Planning and Building Act. This was made because of the Swedish government wanted to make the planning process easier. The law changes include the planning process and the development contracts for detailed development plans. The transitional provisions, however, made a reservation to regulate the situations in which older legislation would be used. The regulation is that older legislation should be used if the detailed development plan were initiated prior to 1 January 2015. The purpose of this study is to investigate when a detailed development plan is initiated.  The study is based on current legislation and its application, this will be investigated using various methods. To interpret the law about the concept, legal dignity approach has been used through different interpretation methods. In order to gain an understanding of how the law is applied, a legal sociological approach has been used. This was done by conducting a questionnaire survey, where all the municipalities in Sweden were asked how they interpret the concept.  This has shown that the term is unclearly defined, as evidenced by the varying answers received from the municipalities in the survey. However, the majority of municipalities interpret the concept "initiate" according to the definitions that the National Board of Housing, Building and Planning and the government have formulated. What is also evident from the study is that the differences in the different legislation are large and that the municipality's conditions change significantly depending on when a detailed plan is "initiated". The study also shows that the units within the municipality interpret the term in a generally similar manner. The result of the legal interpretation and compilation of the survey shows that National Board of Housing, Building and Planning and the government's definitions of "initiated" detailed development plan are unclear. And that the existing definitions are in need of clarification for the application of these transitional rules by similar municipalities.

O presente trabalho pretende apresentar um modelo unificado para o tratamento das estabilidades processuais (coisa julgada e preclusões). Para tanto, parte de duas premissas fundamentais: a segurança como continuidade jurídica, uma forma dinâmica de proteger a estabilidade sem impedir alterações de conteúdo nos atos jurídicos estáveis; e, de outro lado, a concepção das estabilidades processuais como uma cadeia de vínculos em contraditório. A combinação destas premissas resgata o papel da argumentação jurídica no sistema da coisa julgada, retomando a importância da vinculatividade das razões de decidir; e também incorpora ao modelo uma dimensão interprocessual que visa a garantir harmonia e coerência ao tráfego jurídico. Com base nestes pilares, tenta-se propor parâmetros para uma nova compreensão dos limites objetivos e temporais da coisa julgada. No campo dos limites objetivos, destaca-se a elaboração em torno dos esquemas argumentativos, estruturas aglutinadas de elementos processuais referentes ao exercício do contraditório. Em relação aos limites temporais, procura-se elaborar um modelo de revisão das estabilidades que incorpore o novum sem impedir a mudança. Neste contexto, trabalham-se também mecanismos compensatórios para a superação das estabilidades, tais como o ônus argumentativo no procedimento de quebra, e as regras de transição editadas pelo próprio Poder Judiciário. / The present work intends to present a unified model for the juridical treatment of the procedural forms of stability (res iudicata and issue preclusions). For this purposes, it has two fundamental premises: on the one hand, security as legal continuity, a dynamic way to protect the stability without preventing changes in the content of stable acts. On the other hand, the conception of procedural stabilities as chains of binding links operated through the right to a fair hearing. With the combination of these aspects, the role of the argumentation and the exercise of procedural rights gain in importance to the system of res iudicata, reviving the bindingness not only of the conclusion but also of the reasoning of the judgement; and also provides an inter-procedural dimension in order to guarantee harmony and coherence to the whole of juridical relations. By means of this ideas, the present work proposes parameters to verify the objective and time limits of claim and issue preclusions. In regard of the object of preclusions, a bigger role plays the concept of argumentative schemes, linked structures of procedural elements that refer to the exercise of the right to a fair hearing. In terms of the time limits of preclusions, the present thesis focus on establishing a model of review that incorporates the novum without preventing change of content. Therefore it works with compensatory mechanisms to overcome stabilities like, for instance, the burden of argumentation in the proceeding and transition rules edited by the Judiciary.

O presente trabalho pretende apresentar um modelo unificado para o tratamento das estabilidades processuais (coisa julgada e preclusões). Para tanto, parte de duas premissas fundamentais: a segurança como continuidade jurídica, uma forma dinâmica de proteger a estabilidade sem impedir alterações de conteúdo nos atos jurídicos estáveis; e, de outro lado, a concepção das estabilidades processuais como uma cadeia de vínculos em contraditório. A combinação destas premissas resgata o papel da argumentação jurídica no sistema da coisa julgada, retomando a importância da vinculatividade das razões de decidir; e também incorpora ao modelo uma dimensão interprocessual que visa a garantir harmonia e coerência ao tráfego jurídico. Com base nestes pilares, tenta-se propor parâmetros para uma nova compreensão dos limites objetivos e temporais da coisa julgada. No campo dos limites objetivos, destaca-se a elaboração em torno dos esquemas argumentativos, estruturas aglutinadas de elementos processuais referentes ao exercício do contraditório. Em relação aos limites temporais, procura-se elaborar um modelo de revisão das estabilidades que incorpore o novum sem impedir a mudança. Neste contexto, trabalham-se também mecanismos compensatórios para a superação das estabilidades, tais como o ônus argumentativo no procedimento de quebra, e as regras de transição editadas pelo próprio Poder Judiciário. / The present work intends to present a unified model for the juridical treatment of the procedural forms of stability (res iudicata and issue preclusions). For this purposes, it has two fundamental premises: on the one hand, security as legal continuity, a dynamic way to protect the stability without preventing changes in the content of stable acts. On the other hand, the conception of procedural stabilities as chains of binding links operated through the right to a fair hearing. With the combination of these aspects, the role of the argumentation and the exercise of procedural rights gain in importance to the system of res iudicata, reviving the bindingness not only of the conclusion but also of the reasoning of the judgement; and also provides an inter-procedural dimension in order to guarantee harmony and coherence to the whole of juridical relations. By means of this ideas, the present work proposes parameters to verify the objective and time limits of claim and issue preclusions. In regard of the object of preclusions, a bigger role plays the concept of argumentative schemes, linked structures of procedural elements that refer to the exercise of the right to a fair hearing. In terms of the time limits of preclusions, the present thesis focus on establishing a model of review that incorporates the novum without preventing change of content. Therefore it works with compensatory mechanisms to overcome stabilities like, for instance, the burden of argumentation in the proceeding and transition rules edited by the Judiciary.