sou · GPB3103d1 · 2002-01-01 00:00:00 — Det föreslås att ett förhör skall kunna inledas med en uppspelning eller uppläsning av vad förhörspersonen har berättat tidigare inför rätta, om detta kan antas främja förhörets genom- förande eller av annat skäl är lämpligt. Parterna och rätten skall få ställa frågor till vittnet efter uppläsningen eller uppspelningen. Den föreslagna bestämmelsen innebär alltså att förhöret inte behöver tas om i sin helhet. Det nu gällande förbudet att i bevissyfte åberopa en skriftlig berättelse mjukas upp såvitt gäller tvistemål. En part skall få lägga fram en skriftlig berättelse eller en inspelning, om motparten god- tar det och det inte är uppenbart olämpligt. Detta gäller såväl dispositiva som indispositiva tvistemål. Reglerna om tidsplan för handläggningen av tvistemål stramas upp något. Om en tidsplan upprättas, skall parterna vara skyldiga att fortlöpande ha kontroll över att denna kan hållas såvitt gäller dem och deras bevisning. Uppstår svårigheter att hålla tidsplanen skall det genast anmälas till domstolen. Om domstolen finner att tids- planen inte kan hållas, skall parterna underrättas om detta. Domstolens möjlighet att föra in bevisning i målet Utredningen föreslår att rättens möjlighet att i tingsrätt utan begäran från en part föra in bevisning i ett dispositivt tvistemål slopas. Rätten skall kunna avvisa ett åberopat bevis, om en bevis- upptagning trots rimliga ansträngningar inte kan genomföras och avgörandet inte bör fördröjas ytterligare. Avvisningsmöjligheten kan användas t.ex. när rätten inte får tag på ett åberopat vittne. Parter som i dispositiva tvistemål skall höras i bevissyfte skall till det sammanträde vid vilket förhöret skall hållas kallas att infinna sig personligen vid påföljd att tredskodom annars kan meddelas mot dem. Undantag görs för de situationer då det endast är en fråga om rättegångshinder som skall prövas. I indispositiva tviste- mål skall en kärande som skall höras i bevissyfte kallas att komma personligen vid påföljd att käromålet annars förfaller. Utredningen har övervägt om reglerna om domskrivning kan och bör förenklas. Utredningen menar emellertid att det i domarens uppgift att döma ligger att ge domskäl. Detta gäller inte bara i de mer omfattande eller komplicerade målen utan också i enklare mål. Inga parter skall behöva nöja sig med en dom där det inte framgår varför domstolen har dömt på visst sätt. Redan de nu gällande reglerna är så utformade att domstolen inte behöver skriva sådant som är onödigt. Utredningen föreslår därför inte någon ändring av reglerna om domskrivning. Medling, förlikning och andra samförståndslösningar Utredningen ser positivt på de i tvistemål förekommande instituten medling och förlikning. Några nya regler för medling föreslås dock inte. Däremot föreslår utredningen en vidgning av rättens skyldighet att verka för en förlikning eller annan samförståndslösning. Denna skyldighet skall sålunda omfatta även indispositiva tvistemål. Utredningen har studerat det danska systemet med tilkende- givelser som erbjuder parterna en speciell möjlighet att i tvistemål träffa en förlikning efter det att huvudförhandling har hållits. Utredningen föreslår att detta system prövas även i . met innebär att domstolen efter huvudförhandlingen med parternas samtycke lämnar ett preliminärt besked till dessa om hur den kommer att döma i målet. Godtar parterna innehållet i detta besked, har de möjlighet att träffa en förlikning som kan stadfästas genom dom eller leda till att målet återkallas. Några hinder mot att tillämpa detta system även i torde i och för sig inte före- ligga enligt gällande rätt. Utredningen föreslår emellertid att det uttryckligen anges i RB att rätten, om den efter huvudförhand- lingen men före domen vill verka för en förlikning eller annan samförståndslösning, får med parternas samtycke redovisa sin uppfattning om utgången i målet. Förslaget gäller såväl dispositiva som indispositiva tvistemål. Avtal om att inte överklaga Ett annat sätt för parterna i ett tvistemål att begränsa tid och kostnader och snabbt komma till avslut är att de träffar avtal om att inte överklaga domen i målet. Parterna kan ha ett intresse av att få saken rättsligt prövad utan att för den skull vilja riskera den tids- utdräkt och de kostnader som en prövning i flera instanser kan medföra. Utredningen föreslår att frågan om att ingå avtal att inte överklaga en dom alltid skall tas upp under ett tvistemåls för- beredelse. Parterna föreslås få rätt att träffa ett sådant bindande avtal även i indispositiva tvistemål. The Commission was assigned the task of investigating ways and means of improving the procedural rules applicable to civil and criminal cases. Within the framework of this assignment it was at to examine and propose relaxations of the fundamental principles of orality, immediacy and concentration laid down in the Code of Judicial Procedure. The principle of orality in this connection means that the statements made at the main hearing are presented orally; under the principle of immediacy the ruling of the court is to be based directly on the case material if a main hearing is held in the case; the principle of concentration means that the proceedings are to be concluded at one hearing or several hearings within a limited space of time. The Commission devoted special attention to striking a balance between orality and written presentations, to matters relating to evidence and to settlements out of court. Another important task was to investigate whether experimental legislation concerning the use of video technology in court proceedings could be adopted permanently. Finally, the Commission also dealt with other matters within the framework of its terms of reference. The Commission based its investigation on a citizens perspective, i.e. on the benefit of proposed changes and reforms to the citizen. Reform proposals should take into account the fact that the courts are not an end in themselves but should serve the interests of the citizens. Use of modern sound and video technology The Videoconferencing Pilot (1999:613) entered into force on January 1 2000. Under the Act, the parties in courts that take part in the pilot scheme can in certain circumstances appear in court within the meaning of the Code of Judicial Procedure by means of a videoconferencing system (i.e. by video link). Witnesses and others can also be heard by video link in certain circumstances. The videoconferencing pilot scheme appears to be a success. The main features of the legislation should be adopted and applied to all ordinary courts of law, although as a general rule those who take part in court proceedings should still appear in the place where the proceedings are held. The Commission proposes that the rules on appearance by video link should have general application. In other words, parties, persons who are summoned to give evidence and others should be allowed to take part in proceedings by video link on condition that this is not inappropriate in view of the purpose of the proceedings and other circumstances. Apart from taking into account the views of the parties concerned, the court should base its assessment in this connection in particular on the costs or inconvenience that would otherwise arise and whether any of the persons concerned is afraid to appear in person. The latter category includes injured parties and witnesses in cases involving organized crime. But victims of commonplace crimes, such as physical abuse of women, should also be allowed to take part by video link. However, caution and judgment must be exercised in making use of this option. In cases where persons are afraid to appear, consideration should always be given to the alternative of removing the potentially intimidating person from the court and letting him take part in the proceedings by listening in. Parties should always have the right to appear in the place where the proceedings are conducted, i.e. normally in the courtroom. Others, in particular persons who are to give evidence, should be informed that they cannot receive full compensation if they appear in the courtroom although they have been summoned to appear by video link. The Commission proposes that the sanctions provided by the Code of Judicial Procedure in the case of persons who fail to appear at proceedings should also be applicable to persons who fail to take part by video link. It should be possible to use video technology to ensure that persons who are banned from the courtroom because their presence has an intimidating effect should have the chance to follow the proceedings as well as possible. The conditions governing participation in proceedings by telephone should be amended so as to be consistent with the rules on videoconferencing. Exceptions should be made in the case of prosecutors, injured parties in private actions, suspects and public defenders in proceedings for the issue of a warrant of arrest and criminal trials. There should never be any question of their taking part in such proceedings by telephone link alone. The rules on the use of telephone and video conferences should be assembled in one and the same section of the Code of Judicial Procedure. Videoconferencing should also be allowed in the case of hearings conducted in accordance with the Court Procedure Act. The use of video technology and telephones should be regulated both as regards matters covered by that Act and the Bankruptcy Act, for example, by reference to the Code of Judicial Procedure. The Commission also proposes that the term sound and video transmission should be used as a generic term for video and related technologies. This would avoid restricting the legislation to current technology and terminology. For the same reason, the word telephone in the Code should be replaced by sound transmission. Some trials involve so many people that there is not enough room in the courtroom for all participants and spectators. The Commission proposes that in certain circumstances courts should be required by law to arrange for parties and others to follow the proceedings by means of sound and/or video transmission in another room (court annexe) prepared for the purpose. Where special reasons exist, the court could also provide a court annexe in cases where there is not enough room for the audience in the courtroom. The Commission proposes that the regulations applying to courtrooms should also apply to court annexes. General remarks on orality, written presentationss and immediacy The Code of Judicial Procedure is based on the principle that criminal and civil cases should be decided on the basis of an oral main hearing and that the judgment should be based solely on the oral statements made during that hearing. The purpose of the principles of orality and immediacy is to ensure the best possible examination of the evidence. The rules in the Code of Judicial Procedure concerning the main hearing have been relaxed over the years, not least as a result of the work of the Judicial Procedure Commission and the legislation reforming proceedings in district courts (1987). In other procedural legislation, such as the 1971 Administrative Procedures Act and the 1996 Court Procedure Act, there are no rules concerning main hearings within the meaning of the Code of Judicial Procedure. According to the Administrative Procedures Act, the purpose of a hearing is not to establish a complete basis for a decision but only to complement the proceedings, which are mainly in writing, in one or more respects. The Court Procedure Act has the same structure. Both the Administrative Procedures Act and the Court Procedure Act appear to function well. This indicates that some cases and administrative procedures at least can be processed without applying the basic principles laid down in the Code of Judicial Procedure. It should be noted, however, that there has been some convergence between proceedings in the administrative courts and those in ordinary courts of law, since the use of oral statements has become more common in the former, while proceedings conducted in accordance with the Code of Judicial Procedure now allow more scope for written presentations. Evidence generally plays a greater part in the ordinary courts than in the administrative courts, especially in criminal cases. There is no doubt that the principle of free examination of evidence, which includes free presentation and evaluation of evidence, should continue to be the foundation-stone on which legal proceedings in the ordinary courts are based. There is also a broad consensus that the principles of immediacy, orality and concentration laid down in the Code of Judicial Procedure offer the best guarantee for proper examination of the evidence. In the light of the above remarks, the Commission does not propose merging the rules applying to proceedings in ordinary courts and those in administrative courts. It does, however, propose softening some of the rules in the Code of Judicial Procedure relating to the principles of orality and immediacy. hearings and other hearings The Commission considered the possibility of explicitly providing for hearings to deal with certain aspects of the case only, as in the administrative courts. In the Commissions view, the existing legislation already makes it possible to deal with aspects of civil cases orally at a pre-trial hearing, after which a ruling can be made without a formal main hearing. If the statements made at the pre- trial hearing are recorded in writing, they can serve as a basis for the ruling. Consequently, the Commission does not propose any rules concerning a new type of hearing. However, the Commission proposes that the rules concerning pre-trial hearings should be made more uniform. All matters relating to the preparatory stage could be dealt with in the framework of a uniform hearing procedure. The same type of hearing should thus be used for the parties views on the question at issue and for taking evidence and considering procedural issues. The same rules concerning non-appearance should in principle apply regardless of the matters to be dealt with at the hearing. One exception is hearings whose only purpose is to consider the question of procedural hindrances. In that case, the parties should be summoned in the same way as for hearings in cases in which a settlement is not possible. The requirement that there must be special reasons for holding a hearing to prepare a criminal case should be abolished. Instead, a rule should be introduced providing that a hearing should be held if it is necessary for the preparation of the case or some other reason. As with the proposals relating to civil cases, all matters relating to the preparatory stage should be dealt with in a uniform hearing framework. The same type of hearing should also be used to examine the parties presentations of their views on liability in the case and for the taking of evidence and procedural issues. However, special provisions should continue to apply to coercive measures. As regards main hearings in civil cases, the Commission proposes adjusting the rules so that the general rule will no longer be to deliver a ruling after a main hearing. According to this proposal, a civil case should be decided after a main hearing if this is necessary for the judicial inquiry or for some other reason, or if a party who has not had the opportunity to make a proper oral presentation of his case so requests. The corollary of this is that a party who has had the opportunity to present his case orally at the preparatory stage would no longer have an absolute right to a main hearing regardless of the circumstances. hearings should continue to be the normal procedure in criminal cases. However, it should not be necessary to hold a main hearing in a district court where there is no reason to impose a sanction other than a fine, unless a main hearing is demanded by a party or is necessary for the sake of the judicial inquiry or for some other reason. Before a case is decided without a main hearing in such circumstances the parties should be given the opportunity to finish presenting their case if they have not done so already. If the prosecutor has any wishes as to the conduct of the case – for example, that judgment should be passed without a main hearing – he or she could make this clear in connection with the summons application. If there is a possibility of a ruling being made without a main hearing, the accused must be informed of this, and of his right to demand a main hearing, in the writ of summons. The balance between orality and written presentations The principles of orality and immediacy are not very important during the preparatory stage. During the preliminary proceedings the parties can refer to documents without the need to read them aloud. This is true even where the purpose of the proceedings is to provide a basis for a decision. Consequently, the Commission does not propose any new rules relating to orality and immediacy with respect to pre-trial hearings. The opposite applies to main hearings. Only oral statements made during the main hearing can be used as a basis for the judgment in the case. This is scarcely consistent with a modern trial procedure that is adapted to the circumstances in the individual case. The Commission therefore proposes that the parties in a civil case should be allowed by the court to refer to documents in the case in connection with the review of claims, responses to claims and presentation of the circumstances that are cited, and also in connection with the presentation of a case in a main hearing. The documents in the case include sound and video recordings. The same should apply to criminal cases. In criminal cases, moreover, information about the personal circumstances of the accused could be presented in the form of references. The material to which reference is made would be considered material in the case and could therefore serve as a basis for the judgment. Statements of case material Under the present rules, the court is supposed to prepare a written summary of the parties positions if this is in the interest of the case. The Commission proposes amending this rule by replacing the word summary by statement, at the same time as it would be compulsory to draw up a statement where it is in the interest of the proceedings. Statements should contain information on each of the parties claims, their attitude to the opposite partys claims, the circumstances referred to by parties in support of their claims and each partys attitude to the facts cited by the opposite party. This terminology should also be used in the rules on the recording of proceedings, the rules on the objectives set for the preparation of a civil case, the rules on the information to be supplied by the parties at a main hearing and the rules on the content of the judgment recital in civil cases. The proposed terminology only consists of minimum requirements. The intention is, by using uniform terminology and modern word processing techniques, to enable the courts to use a uniform document that can be expanded as the case proceeds. As is normally the case at present, the statement should be drawn up by the court, but the court could order the parties to submit documentation for the purposes of the statement. Taking of evidence outside the main hearing The Commission proposes softening the rules governing the taking of evidence outside the main hearing. These rules should be extended to include virtually all evidence that is submitted in the course of the trial apart from the main hearing. The hearing of witnesses and parties under oath should – apart from the cases where this is already permitted – take place at the main hearing where it will probably not be necessary to hear them again at the main hearing or if it is possible that the case will be decided without a main hearing. The proposed changes relate both to hearings concerning an issue that will be considered at the main hearing, to procedural issues that will not be considered in connection with the main hearing, as well as to cases in which no main hearing will be held. Corresponding rules are proposed for inspections. Where the court is to take a decision at the preparatory stage on a matter that will be considered once again in connection with the courts ruling, for example consideration of a provisional claim in a custody case, provision should only be made for hearing witnesses and parties outside the main hearing in exceptional circumstances or where this is permitted under special provisions. Where evidence is heard outside the main hearing in a civil case that is amenable to out-of-court settlement, the evidence must not be heard again at the main hearing unless one of the parties so requests. The same will apply to civil cases that are amenable to settlement in which a new main hearing is held and the evidence has been given at the first hearing. The Commission considered the question whether it should be possible to use a recording of a previous hearing once again at the main hearing. A distinction should be made between hearings held in court and other hearings, for example interrogations. Only hearings held in court should in certain circumstances replace or complement a hearing held in connection with the main hearing. The Commission proposes that it should be possible to start a hearing by playing a recording of or reading aloud the statement of the person in question if this may be assumed to further the hearing or is appropriate for some other reason. The parties and the court should be permitted to question the witness after the reading or recording. The proposed provision would make it unnecessary to repeat the entire hearing. The present prohibition against citing a written statement as evidence should be relaxed in civil cases. Parties should be allowed to submit a written statement or a recording if this is acceptable to the opposite party and is not obviously inappropriate. This applies to civil cases irrespective of whether or not a settlement is possible. The rules on timetables for the hearing of civil cases should be tightened up. If a timetable is drawn up, the parties should be required to check continuously whether they can keep to it insofar as it concerns them and their evidence. If any difficulty arises in to the timetable, this should be notified to the court immediately. If the court finds that the timetable cannot be maintained, it should notify the parties to that effect. Introduction of evidence into the case by the courts The Commission proposes that district courts should no longer be authorized to introduce evidence into a civil case in which a settlement is not possible, unless this is requested by one of the parties. The court should be permitted to reject evidence that is referred to where, despite all reasonable efforts, it proves impossible to take the evidence and the ruling of the court must not be further delayed. Evidence could, for example, be rejected where the court cannot find a witness that is cited. Parties who are to give evidence in civil cases that are amenable to settlement should be summoned on pain of contempt to appear in person at the proceedings during which they are to be heard. Exceptions should be made in situations where the issue to be considered relates only to a procedural hindrance. A plaintiff who is to give evidence in a civil case that is amenable to settlement should be summoned to appear in person, failing which his claim lapses. The Commission considered whether the rules relating to the formulation of judgments could or should be simplified. The Commissions view is that judges are duty bound to give reasons for their judgments. This applies not only to complex cases, but also to straightforward ones.