sou · GVB326 · 2008-01-01 00:00:00 — Förfarandet skall vara alltigenom frivilligt. Fram till dess att sammanträdet har avslutats skall en part när som helst kunna dra sig ur förfarandet utan att det leder till några konsekvenser. Det skall inte vara möjligt att få ersättning för rättegångskostnader i förfarandet. Ett förhandsbeslut eller ett beslut om att avslå en ansökan om förhandsbeslut skall inte kunna överklagas. Däremot skall ett för- handsbeslut inte hindra en part från att senare inleda en vanlig rät- tegång angående samma tvist. Alternative dispute resolution can be defined as comprising meth- ods for resolving legal disputes in ways other than through tradi- tional legal proceedings and judgments. In , such methods are available primarily outside the courts, e.g. in , in arbitration tribunals, and in various organizations that offer mediation. There is, how- ever, the opportunity to have a special mediator appointed within the frame of the procedure in a civil case. The Inquiry has had the tasks of examining the conditions for and considering the design of an alternative district-court procedure in actions amenable to out- of-court settlements, and of taking a stance on whether actions should be taken to bring about increased utilization of mediation in the courts. One point of departure for the work of the Inquiry has been that the traditional form of court proceedings shall remain available to everybody. The proposed alternatives shall be regarded as a com- plement to commonplace judicial review, and shall therefore not restrict the opportunity of disputing parties to have their dispute decided in a traditional . Rather, the aim of the alternative options is to increase the range of conflict-resolution mechanisms so as to be able to offer solutions that are better tailored to the parties and the nature of the disputes. Making it possible for more disputes to be handled by alternative and simpler resolution meth- ods may also lead to the liberation of resources for the better han- dling of disputes that are treated in a traditional . A settlement means that the parties to a dispute come to an agree- ment, and accept that agreement as a resolution of the dispute. That a case can be resolved through a conciliatory settlement has advantages both for the parties and for society at large. The Inquiry therefore proposes that the Courts duty, in the first instance, to work for reconciliation shall be somewhat sharpened. According to the proposal, the Court shall make efforts to obtain a settlement between the parties if this is not inappropriate in light of the nature of the case and other circumstances. There should be concrete grounds that speak against a settlement if the Court is to refrain from raising the issue of conciliation. The Inquiry further proposes that the opportunity of courts of appeal to work for conciliation is confirmed in law. A court of appeal should, however, not have any explicit obligation to work for such a settlement. In light of the clear advantages that accompany a settlement, all parties should have access to the best possible tools for reaching a conciliatory solution within the frame of court proceedings. Con- ciliatory activities are currently undertaken primarily by the judge administering the case. The aptitude and commitment of judges with regard to settlement negotiations do, however, vary, and the parties have no opportunity to influence which judge will adminis- ter their case. If, instead, conciliatory work takes place through mediation, there are greater guarantees that all parties will be able to pursue settlement negotiations under the guidance of a person with the requisite interest and aptitude. The Inquiry proposes therefore that mediation, in principle, shall be the first option to be considered with regard to the issue of conciliatory procedure. In all actions amenable to settlement, the Court shall consider whether mediation should be offered to the parties. Such an offer should come at an early stage in case proceedings, generally immediately after the defence plea has been made. It is at this stage that, in pro- cedural terms, the advantages of a settlement are greatest. It shall, however, be entirely voluntary for the parties to go through me- diation. In instances where mediation does not come about, the Court shall, as previously, work for settlement within the frame of administration of the case. The Inquiry proposes that access to mediators shall be increased by each court appointing a number of judges at the court who, alongside their regular tasks, are enabled to act as mediators. appointed judges shall receive training in the arena, which will en- sure that every court will be able to offer quality mediation to the parties. The proposal also entails that mediation will be cost-free to the parties, since a mediator who is a judge will mediate within the frame of his employment. It shall remain possible for mediation to take place with the aid of an external mediator, but in such case the parties will have to pay for the remuneration of the mediator. Mediation shall be regulated in a specific Act on Mediation in Ordinary Courts. When the Court rules for mediation, it shall at the same time set a deadline for when the mediation shall at the latest be completed. The assigned time period may not exceed two months. The mediator shall be responsible for the mediation being conducted according to purpose and quickly. Forms for the pro- ceedings are determined by the mediator in consultation with the parties. The points of departure for the work of the mediator should be to attempt to map the interests and needs of the parties, and to determine the problems they wish to resolve. In light of this, the mediator should help the parties themselves to find a so- lution to their dispute. The mediator, however, must also be able to adopt a more value-laden approach, expressing his or her own pro- posals for conflict resolution. A mediation meeting shall, as has previously applied, not be held in public. Information supplied to the mediator shall, according to our proposal, be covered by confidentiality law, to the extent that the communicating party insists that it is held secret. If mediation is concluded without a settlement being reached, administration of the case continues as usual. judge who has mediated in the case, by contrast with the judge who is working on conciliation within the frame of administration of the case, may not decide the case if attempts at settlement fail. The mediator too must, however, act impartially, so as to maintain the confidence of the parties. It shall also be possible to offer mediation to the parties in the Court of Appeal. At the appeal stage, mediation should come into question primarily when it is requested by the parties, or when there is a reason that makes it specifically appropriate. Parties who fail to reach an agreement wish, in many cases, to have their dispute resolved in court. The Inquiry proposes two court proceedings that parties to actions amenable to out-of-court set- tlement shall be able to choose in preference to the usual judicial process. Above all, the options must be quicker and cheaper than the traditional dispute-resolution process. The Inquiry considers that the proceedings can be introduced in parallel. According to its remit, the Inquiry has had the task of proposing district-court proceedings that would be administered by a single judge and that would emanate in an implementable, non-appealable judgment that would have legal force. The proceedings are to be characterized by voluntariness, rapidity, influence of the parties, and flexibility. The Inquiry proposes that the proceedings shall be designated as a quick judicial procedure and governed by an Act independent of Code of Judicial Procedure. In this way, it would be made clear that it is an alternative to the traditional process. With regard to issues not covered by the specific Act, the provisions of the Code of Judicial Procedure would apply, to the extent that they do not conflict with the aims and fundamental principles of a quick judicial procedure. It is envisaged that the proceedings would be used by parties who wish quickly to see an implementable and final resolution of their dispute without risking anything but their own litigation costs. In designing the proceedings, the Inquiry has taken as its point of departure that the parties who choose them may be expected to prioritize speed over other factors. Accordingly, rela- tively strict demands are imposed on the parties actively to partici- pate in a quick judicial procedure. There is a time limit even for the Court. The case should be completed within three months unless, following consultation with the parties, the Court decides other- wise. The procedure is primarily designed for disputes where private individuals or small or medium sized enterprises, with limited fi- nancial resources, are involved. However, the Inquiry envisages that the procedure may be of interest even to other parties. It shall be voluntary for the parties to engage in a quick judicial procedure. Parties who are in a contractual relationship with each other shall be able to reach advance agreement that any disputes resulting from their contract will be resolved through the quick procedure. It shall also be possible to gain the defendants consent after the plaintiff has taken legal action with a request for a quick judicial procedure. The quick procedure shall be flexible, and adapted to the parties and the nature of the dispute. The Code of Judicial Procedures principles concerning oral proceedings, immediacy and concentra- tion are replaced by the demand for speed and concentration throughout the proceedings. There shall be no division between preparatory and main hearings. The parties shall have the opportu- nity to express their wishes with regard to administration of the procedure, but the Court will have full authority to decide over administrative issues so as to ensure that the procedure is both ex- pedient and rapid. It shall be possible to combine oral and written testimony. If witnesses are to be interviewed, or if any party so re- quests, meetings can be held. Otherwise, the Court may rule on the case entirely on the basis of written documentation. Usually, the judge will hold a telephone conference with the parties or their legal representatives after submission of the de- fense. The procedure to be followed shall be discussed during the telephone conference, and thereafter a schedule laid down. The schedule shall specify the timing of the processes that will arise. It shall also set a time for when the parties finally determine their claims and the items of evidence to which they wish to refer. The schedule shall be distributed to the partiers, and can thereby act as a substitute for traditional orders or injunctions. party who does not follow the schedule runs the risk of sanctions. Exchange of written documentation shall be restricted so that the parties are allowed to present two documents with regard to the matter. The parties shall have responsibility that the evidence referred to can be presented. If witnesses are called, the parties must ensure that they turn up on the occasion of interview. It shall also be pos- sible, rather than holding an interview, for written witness state- ments to be obtained. If any such statement is referred to, it should be retained so that is possible to interview the witness in question with regard to supplementary issues or any that require clarifica- tion. On its own account, the Court may not introduce evidence into the case. one party, according to the main rule, shall not have the right to compensation for costs incurred in a case that is resolved through the quick procedure. It shall, however, be possible for the parties to come to agreement over an alternative distribution of the costs, e.g. in a way that the party regarded as the loser shall pay the expenses of the counter-party. party found guilty of negli- gence in the process shall also be obliged to pay a part of the counter-partys costs. It shall also be possible for the parties to undergo mediation in the course of an ongoing quick procedure. Further, it shall be pos- sible for the parties to make a transition from regular proceedings to quick proceedings, and vice-versa, if they so wish, and if the Court finds it appropriate. There is no possible appeal against the judgments and decisions of a quick judicial procedure. On the other hand, it is possible to apply for a new trial or to make a formal complaint against a mis- carriage of . The Inquirys other proposal for an alternative form of dispute resolution deviates from its remit in that the decision in the pro- ceedings will not have legal force. By such means, the Inquiry has regarded it as possible for proceedings to be even quicker and less formalized than implied by the rules concerning a quick procedure. It is proposed that the proceedings, which have been inspired by the short procedure in the , are regulated in an inde- pendent Act concerning advance decisions in cases of dispute. The parties shall, by turning to the District Court with an application for an advance decision, be able, within a few weeks, to obtain a resolution to their dispute based on an experienced judges pre- liminary judgment of how the outcome of that dispute might be expected to be if regular legal proceedings had taken place. The parties may choose to accept the advance decision as final, or treat it as a basis for a discussion on settlement. Thereby, they can avoid the time and costs of a regular legal procedure. Since confidence in the judges competence and experience may be regarded as of deci- sive importance for the parties acceptance of an advance decision as a final solution to the dispute, an advance decision may only be issued by a specially appointed, experienced judge. For an advance decision to be issued, it is required that the par- ties are in agreement over it, and that the Court deems it appropri- ate to make such an advance decision with regard to the dispute. The material presented to the judge must be sufficiently limited that it can be presented to the Court at a meeting that is allowed to last for at most two hours. When an application for an advance decision has been received, it shall be sent to the counter-party, who will then be invited to state whether he or she wishes to participate in the proceedings. At the same time, the counter-party is informed about the timing of the meeting with regard to the dispute. If the counter-party does not consent, no advance decision can be made. In such case, the appli- cation is rejected and the meeting cancelled. If the counter-party does wish to participate, he or she shall specify a position in relation to the plaintiffs claim, and demon- the evidence to which he or she wishes to refer. It is for the Court to determine which evidence the parties may present. If too much is presented, it may be that an advance decision is impossible. Usually, witnesses will not be interviewed. It shall, however, be possible to refer to witness reports. oral meeting shall be held within a few weeks of receipt of the application. In light of the circumstances, the Court will decide the nature of the meeting, which must be held within a few weeks of receipt of the application, and which may last for no longer than one or, at most, two hours. If time is not regarded as sufficient, the dispute will generally be regarded as too extensive for an advance decision to be made. An advance decision must be made within a week of the day of the meeting. The grounds for the advance decision must be docu- mented in detail. The Court will determine whether the advance decision may be implemented if one party requests implementation and it is regarded as appropriate. With regard to suitability, the Court shall determine the extent of the risk that the advance deci- sion might be amended in any subsequent legal process, and any consequences implementation of the decision might be expected to have for the parties. Implementation shall take place at the earliest three weeks after an advance decision has been made. party who wishes to prevent implementation has the opportunity to ini- tiate an action in a regular , and seek an injunction against the advance decision. If the parties come to a settlement during the ongoing proceedings to obtain an advance decision, then the Court will be able to order that the conciliatory agreement be effected. The proceedings must be voluntary throughout. Up to the time that the meeting has been concluded, either one of the parties is able to withdraw from the procedure without any further conse- quences. It shall not be possible to obtain compensation for litiga- tion costs during this procedure. It shall not be possible to appeal against an advance decision or the rejection of one. On the other hand, an advance decision must not prevent any party from later initiating regular legal proceedings with regard to the same dispute. 1 Förslag till lag om ändring i Härigenom föreskrivs i fråga om dels att 36 kap. 5 §, 38 kap. 8 § och 42 kap. 17 § skall ha följande lydelse, dels att det skall införas två nya paragrafer, 34 kap. 2 a §, 50 kap. 11 a §, av följande lydelse. I 2 § lagen (2007:XX) om snabbrättegång i tvistemål finns en bestämmelse om hinder mot rättegång enligt denna balk. Denna skall beaktas endast efter invändning av en part. Den som till följd av 2 kap. 1 eller 2 § eller 3 kap. 1 § sekre- tesslagen (1980:100) eller någon bestämmelse, till vilken hänvisas i något av dessa lagrum, inte får lämna ut en uppgift får inte hö- ras som vittne om denna utan tillstånd från den myndighet i vars verksamhet uppgiften har Den som till följd av 2 kap. 1 eller 2 § eller 3 kap. 1 § sekre- tesslagen (1980:100) eller någon bestämmelse, till vilken hänvisas i något av dessa lagrum, inte får lämna ut en uppgift får inte hö- ras som vittne om denna utan tillstånd från den myndighet i vars verksamhet uppgiften har 1TP PT Senaste lydelse 2006:859. Advokater, läkare, tandläkare, barnmorskor, sjuksköterskor, psykologer, psykoterapeuter, familjerådgivare enligt social- tjänstlagen (2001:453) och deras biträden får höras som vittnen om något som i denna deras yr- kesutövning anförtrotts dem eller som de i samband därmed erfarit, endast om det är medgi- vet i lag eller den, till vars för- mån tystnadsplikten gäller, samtycker till det. Den som till följd av 9 kap. 4 § sekretesslagen inte får lämna uppgifter som avses där får höras som vittne om dem endast om det är med- givet i lag eller den till vars för- mån sekretessen gäller sam- tycker till det. Rättegångsombud, biträden eller försvarare för höras som vittnen om vad som anförtrotts dem för uppdragets fullgörande endast om parten medger det. Utan hinder vad som sägs i andra eller tredje stycket före- ligger skyldighet att vittna för 1. andra än försvarare i mål angående brott som avses i 14 kap. 2 § femte stycket sekre- Advokater, läkare, tandläkare, barnmorskor, sjuksköterskor, psykologer, psykoterapeuter, familjerådgivare enligt social- tjänstlagen (2001:453) och deras biträden får höras som vittnen om något som i denna deras yr- kesutövning anförtrotts dem eller som de i samband därmed erfarit, endast om det är medgi- vet i lag eller den, till vars för- mån tystnadsplikten gäller, samtycker till det. Den som till följd av 9 kap. 4 § sekretesslagen inte får lämna uppgifter som avses där får höras som vittne om dem endast om det är med- givet i lag eller den till vars för- mån sekretessen gäller sam- tycker till det. Rättegångsombud, biträden eller försvarare för höras som vittnen om vad som anförtrotts dem för uppdragets fullgörande endast om parten medger det. Medlare enligt lagen (2007:XX) om medling i allmän domstol och deras biträden får höras som vittnen om vad som anförtrotts dem vid medlingen eller som de i samband därmed erfarit endast om parterna medger det. Utan hinder vad som sägs i andra, tredje eller fjärde stycket föreligger skyldighet att vittna för 1. andra än försvarare i mål angående brott som avses i 14 kap. 2 § femte stycket sekre- tesslagen (1980:100) och 2. den som har uppgiftsskyl- dighet enligt 14 kap. 1 § social- tjänstlagen (2001:453) i mål en- ligt 5 kap. 2 § eller 6 kap. 6, 13, eller 14 § samma lag eller enligt lagen (1990:52) med särskilda bestämmelser om vård av unga. Den som är präst inom ett trossamfund eller den som i ett sådant samfund har motsva- rande ställning får inte höras som vittne om något som han eller hon har erfarit under bikt eller enskild själavård. Den som har tystnadsplikt enligt 3 kap. 3 § tryckfrihetsför- ordningen eller 2 kap. 3 § ytt- randefrihetsgrundlagen får hö- ras som vittne om förhållanden som tystnadsplikten avser en- dast i den mån det föreskrivs i nämnda paragrafer. Om någon enligt vad som sägs i denna paragraf inte får höras som vittne om ett visst förhållande, får vittnesförhör inte heller äga rum med den som under tystnadsplikt biträtt med tolkning eller översättning. tesslagen (1980:100) och 2. den som har uppgiftsskyl- dighet enligt 14 kap. 1 § social- tjänstlagen (2001:453) i mål en- ligt 5 kap. 2 § eller 6 kap. 6, 13, eller 14 § samma lag eller enligt lagen (1990:52) med särskilda bestämmelser om vård av unga. Den som är präst inom ett trossamfund eller den som i ett sådant samfund har motsva- rande ställning får inte höras som vittne om något som han eller hon har erfarit under bikt eller enskild själavård. Den som har tystnadsplikt enligt 3 kap. 3 § tryckfrihetsför- ordningen eller 2 kap. 3 § ytt- randefrihetsgrundlagen får hö- ras som vittne om förhållanden som tystnadsplikten avser en- dast i den mån det föreskrivs i nämnda paragrafer. Om någon enligt vad som sägs i denna paragraf inte får höras som vittne om ett visst förhållande, får vittnesförhör inte heller äga rum med den som under tystnadsplikt biträtt med tolkning eller översättning. Om allmän handling kan an- tagas äga betydelse som bevis, äge rätten förordna att hand- lingen skall tillhandahållas. Första stycket gäller ej 1. handling som innehåller Om allmän handling kan an- tas ha betydelse som bevis, får rätten besluta att handlingen skall tillhandahållas. Första stycket gäller inte 1. handling som innehåller 2TP PT Senaste lydelse 1980:101. uppgift, för vilken gäller sekre- tess till flöjd av 2 kap. 1 eller 2 § eller 3 kap. 1 § sekretesslagen (1980:100) eller bestämmelse, till vilken hänvisas i något av dessa lagrum, med mindre den myndighet som har att pröva fråga om utlämnande av hand- lingar givit sitt tillstånd därtill; 2.handling vars innehåll är sådant, att någon, som haft be- fattning med handlingen, enligt 36 kap. 5 § andra, tredje, fjärde eller sjätte stycket ej må höras därom; 3.handling genom vars före- teende yrkeshemlighet skulle uppenbaras, med mindre syn- nerlig anledning förekommer. uppgift, för vilken gäller sekre- tess till följd av 2 kap. 1 eller 2 § eller 3 kap. 1 § sekretesslagen (1980:100) eller bestämmelse, till vilken hänvisas i något av dessa lagrum, med mindre den myndighet som har att pröva fråga om utlämnande av hand- lingar givit sitt tillstånd därtill; 2.handling vars innehåll är sådant, att någon, som haft be- fattning med handlingen, enligt 36 kap. 5 § andra, tredje, fjärde, femte eller sjunde stycket inte får höras därom; 3.handling genom vars före- teende yrkeshemlighet skulle uppenbaras, med mindre syn- nerlig anledning förekommer. Rätten skall, om det är lämp- Rätten skall verka för att par- ligt med hänsyn till målets be- terna förliks eller på annat sätt skaffenhet och övriga omstän- digheter, verka för att parterna om det inte är olämpligt med förliks eller på annat sätt uppnår och övriga omständigheter. Om det i ett mål där förlik- I mål där förlikning om saken ning om saken är tillåten med