sou · H0B326 · 2012-05-02 00:00:00 — Utredningen föreslår också att det införs en bestämmelse i lag om att det räcker med en vårdnadshavares underskrift för barnets räkning på en ansökan om brottsskadeersättning, om det är barnets andra vårdnadshavare som har begått brottet. Utredningen föreslår att den övre gränsen för brottsskadeersätt- ning i form av ersättning för kränkning höjs från tio till 15 bas- belopp. De övriga beloppsgränserna, nämligen för personskada, årlig livränta, sakskada och ren förmögenhetsskada, bör behållas oförändrade. Även fortsättningsvis bör ett visst belopp räknas av från den brottsskadeersättning som betalas ut, det föreslås dock att det kallas grundavdrag i stället för som självrisk. Utredningen föreslår vidare att den nedre gränsen för vad som kan betalas ut i brottsskadeersättning höjs från till . Ansökningstid, preskription, omprövning och överlåtelseförbud Utredningen föreslår att tiden för att ansöka om brottsskade- ersättning förlängs från till . Utredningen föreslår också att den nuvarande hänvisningen i brottsskadelagen till bestämmelsen om omprövning i skadestånds- lagen, tas bort. Den omfattande rätten till omprövning enligt de särskilda bestämmelserna i brottsskadelagen bedöms vara tillräcklig. Vidare föreslår utredningen att preskriptionsfrågorna ska regleras i brottsskadelagen. Det föreslås därvid att ett anspråk på brotts- skadeersättning ska ha en preskriptionstid från den brotts- liga gärningen. Vid omprövning ska preskription inträda efter senaste beslut. Preskription beträffande ett anspråk på brottsskadeersättning ska avbrytas genom att den skadelidande kräver skadestånd av skadevållaren med anledning av brottet, försäkringsersättning från försäkringsgivaren med anledning av brottet, eller brottsskadeersättning från . Sådana krav ska verka avbrytande på preskriptionen för samtliga skadeposter som kan ersättas genom brottsskadeersättning. Utred- ningen föreslår också en särskild preskriptionsregel beträffande statens regressfordran på gärningsmannen, nämligen från det att har betalat ut brottsskadeersättning till den skadelidande. Preskriptionsavbrott ska få ske enligt preskriptions- lagen. Det ska även fortsättningsvis vara förbjudet att överlåta ett anspråk på brottsskadeersättning innan ersättningen är tillgänglig Det innebär såvitt avser brottsskadeersättning för personskada, att det är förbjudet att utmäta sådana fordringar. Utan hinder av detta, ska dock kunna besluta att brottsskadeersättning som avser ännu inte uppkomna kostnader för en vårdbehandling av nödvändigt slag, ska utbetalas till vård- givaren när kostnaden har uppkommit. Situationen lär främst bli aktuell avseende kostnader för tandläkarbehandlingar. Bestämmelsen ska dock även kunna tillämpas i fråga om annan nödvändig kostnad av liknande slag. Återbetalning av utgiven brottsskadeersättning Utredningen föreslår att det införs en bestämmelse i brottsskade- lagen om återbetalning av utgiven brottsskadeersättning. Den blir tillämplig om sökanden har lämnat oriktiga upplysningar eller för- tigit förhållanden av betydelse för beslutet att tillerkänna brotts- skadeersättning. Samma sak ska gälla om sökanden efter utbetal- ningen har fått annan ersättning för skadan (vanligen från en försäkring). Återbetalning ska också kunna krävas om brottsskade- ersättning i annat fall har lämnats felaktigt, eller med ett för högt belopp, och den som har fått ersättningen har insett eller bort inse detta. Det kan bli aktuellt t.ex. om sökanden av misstag har fått ersättning två gånger för samma skada. Om den som har fått den felaktiga utbetalningen inte betalar tillbaka den efter krav från , får myndigheten ansöka om betalningsföreläggande hos eller ansöka om stämning vid tingsrätt. Beslutet om återbetalning blir alltså inte verkställbart. Däremot blir bestämmelsen om kvittning tillämplig. En fordran på brottsskadeersättning ska avräknas om den skadelidande är återbetalningsskyldig enligt den nya återbetalningsbestämmelsen. Utredningen har gjort en genomgång av de paragrafer som inte är berörda av de frågor som har tagits upp särskilt i direktiven. I följande avseenden föreslår utredningen ändringar jämfört med den nu gällande brottsskadelagen. När det gäller lagens tillämpningsområde föreslår utredningen att brottsskadeersättning, som tidigare, inte ska betalas om brottet och den skadelidande har så ringa anknytning till att det inte är rimligt att skadan ersätts av svenska statsmedel. Undantags- bestämmelsen ska dock inte tillämpas vid uppsåtliga våldsbrott som begås i mot en skadelidande som för brottet var medborgare i eller hade hemvist i en annan stat inom EU. Inskränkningen av undantaget har föreslagits mot bakgrund av EU:s brottsofferdirektiv, som förpliktar att säkerställa en ordning för ersättning till offer för uppsåtliga våldsbrott som begås här i landet. Reglerna om brottsskadeersättning för s.k. rymlingsskador ändras endast på så sätt att de inte längre blir tillämpliga om skadan har vållats av en person som är underkastad frihetsberövande i , , eller . Såvitt känt har den bestämmelsen inte tillämpats. Den bestämmelse som reglerar hur brottsskadeersättning ska bestämmas, ska inte längre hänvisa till 5 kap. 4 § skadestånds- lagen. I den bestämmelsen anges förutsättningarna för att skade- stånd ska beviljas i form av livränta. Det ska i stället framgå direkt av brottsskadelagen under vilka förutsättningar som livränta kan beviljas. Det är endast en lagteknisk fråga, det föreslås inte någon ändring i sak. Utredningen föreslår också att brottsskadelagen inte längre ska hänvisa till bestämmelsen om jämkning i 6 kap. 1 § skadestånds- lagen. Möjligheterna att jämka brottsskadeersättningen med stöd av bestämmelsen i brottsskadelagen är tillräckliga. Det har varit möjligt att delegera beslutsfattandet beträffande mindre ersättningsbelopp till en annan myndighet än . Möjligheten har tidigare använts så att styrelsen för ungdomsvårdsskolor har kunnat fatta beslut om brotts- skadeersättning. Den har dock inte använts , varför utredningen anser att möjligheten ska tas bort. Slutligen föreslår utredningen att på begäran av den skadelidande ska behandla en ansökan om brotts- skadeersättning som en ansökan om europeisk brottsskadeersättning om brottet har begåtts i en annan stat inom EU. gäller att alla ansökningar som avser uppsåtliga våldsbrott som har begåtts i en annan EU-stat ska betraktas som ansökningar om europeisk brotts- skadeersättning. Lagändringen innebär att sökanden ges ökad möjlighet att påverka när så ska ske. The remit of the Committee is to conduct a broad review of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act. This review is to cover certain specified matters, but the Committee is at to examine other matters within the framework of its remit. is to consider whether there are grounds for restricting opportunities for the Crime Victim Compensation and Support Authority to conduct independent assessments under the law of damages. is also to determine whether there are grounds for extending the right to criminal injuries compensation for violations of personal integrity to certain aggravated offences regarding defamation. Furthermore, the 2006 reform on criminal injuries compensation to children who have witnessed violence against a close relative will be evaluated. will also consider whether there are grounds for lowering the requirements placed on victims of crime to make their own claims regarding payment from the person liable for damages, for example by placing the primary responsibility for demanding payment of imposed criminal injury compensation on the state. Legislation of recourse activities will also be reviewed, as will the maximum amounts in the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act. Moreover, the Committee will also examine whether there is a need for legislative amendments, for example as regards application periods, statutory limitations and the general prohibition against the transfer of criminal injuries compensation. Independent assessments under the law of damages by the Crime Victim Compensation and Support Authority Criminal injuries compensation is a regulation under public law, unlike damages, which is under civil law. While criminal injuries compensation is mainly to be determined according to the principles of the law of damages, it is nonetheless governed by the regulations of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act. The aim of criminal injuries compensation is that the injured party is to be ensured some compensation if the injury is not compensated from some other source, which essentially means the person who caused the injury or an insurance policy. Thus the size of criminal injuries compensation can, for various reasons, differ from what a court has ordered regarding damages in a judgment. Typically the injured party has received some compensation, either via an insurance policy or via payment by the person who caused the injury. In addition, a basic deduction is made when the compensation is determined. Furthermore, the Crime Victim Compensation and Support Authority is not bound in any other way by what a court has ordered concerning damages. The Authority may make its own assessments under the law of damages, which may differ from what a court has decided. In order to emphasise the importance of court judgments in situations where there is no substantive difference in the regulations, the Committee proposes that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act should make clear that the Crime Victim Compensation and Support Authority must follow a courts order on damages when the court has examined the substance of a claim for damages. However, the Crime Victim Compensation and Support Authority is to be able to set higher or lower compensation in two situations. One is where there is reason for doing so in view of new circumstances or new evidence, such as an additional examination that was not available at the time of the court proceedings. The other situation is when compensation ordered by a court differs considerably from current practice. The proposed provision aims at practice concerning compensation levels and should primarily be relevant in matters of compensation for personal integrity violations, where the Crime Victim Compensation and Support Authority has extensive knowledge and, via its Board, considerable influence over practice in the area of the law of damages. One condition for the Authority to deviate from a courts order will be that there actually is established practice that the court has neglected to follow. The Authoritys grounds from deviating from the courts decision are to be specifically stated in its decision. Should the right to criminal injuries compensation for personal integrity violations be expanded? A court can order damages for personal integrity violations if, for example, someone has seriously violated another persons honour (i.e. gross defamation). It is currently not possible to award criminal injuries compensation for an offence of this kind. In light of the increased use of the internet and the extent to which grossly offensive information can be spread there, the Committees terms of reference raises the question of whether criminal injuries compensation should be expanded to certain offences regarding defamation. finds that a right to criminal injuries compensation for offences regarding defamation should not be introduced. Offences of this kind are not subject to public prosecution and consequently, in the majority of cases, the Crime Victim Compensation and Support Authority would not initiate an examination of the offence. is there a suitable way to limit an expanded right to compensation. The scope of crime on the internet is not known since it is not possible to select the internet in the reporting system. Furthermore, the fact that the internet is borderless means that the effects of an expanded right to compensation are difficult to assess. It is therefore not possible to analyse the impact an expansion would have on public finances. The problems that exist concerning defamation on the internet are greater than the issue of criminal injuries compensation, and may need to be examined on the basis of other perspectives. Crime victims obligation to demand payment on their own proposes that a provision be introduced in the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act stating that the injured party must, to a reasonable extent, provide assistance so that the reported offence can be investigated. As before, the general rule is that a report must be made. This would increase the of being able to investigate the offence and of the person who caused the injury being obliged to pay for the injury he or she caused. As regards other claims regarding the injured party, the alternative most advantageous to crime victims would be to allow payment of criminal injuries compensation in direct connection with the offence. However, the Committee finds that an arrangement of this kind is not compatible with the structure of the current system. Many people consider that restitution from the person who caused the injury is important for the crime victim to gain redress. The basic principle of the law of damages, that the person who caused the injury must pay compensation for it, would be relegated to the background. The function of insurance compensation would also be changed and in time there is a risk that insurance coverage would cease. This is because, if insurance companies were to pay the compensation to the state rather than to the individual policy-holder, the companys incentive to retain the protection in their policies, as well as the incentive to have such a policy, would disappear. At present, insurance companies pay at least as much via assault protection in home insurance policies as the state pays through criminal injuries compensation. Changing the arrangement would also result in a deterioration of the Crime Victim Compensation and Support Authoritys decision-making data. Complications would also arise in relation to a subsequent damages claim against the person who caused the injury. The terms of reference contain support for proposing such a radical revision of the system of rules nor, in the Committees opinion, is it motivated. has also considered whether criminal injuries compensation should be paid directly after a final and non- appealable judgment has been delivered. However, it is the Committees opinion that even a solution of this kind would have great consequences for the criminal injuries compensation system, primarily through an impact on insurance coverage. The relationship between insurance companies and their would be eroded and many companies would probably remove assault protection from their policies. Besides altering the interplay between the insurance companies claims review boards, courts and the Crime Victim Compensation and Support Authority, a solution of this kind would have major consequences on public finances. This kind of construction would also impact on the Crime Victim Compensation and Support Authoritys work. The ability of the person who caused the injury to pay would not have been examined when the matter comes before the Authority, so that the Authority, after having paid the criminal injuries compensation, would not be able to send the matter directly to the Swedish Enforcement Authority for collection. If all judgments containing orders on damages (some 15 000–20 000 judgments per year) were sent to the Crime Victim Compensation and Support Authority – rather than the Swedish Enforcement Authority, as is currently the case – it would also be the Crime Victim Compensation and Support Authority that would review all the judgments and assess whether current offences may result in criminal injuries compensation. All other judgements, as well as judgments where the amount of the damages ordered exceeds that which may be paid in criminal injuries compensation, would be forwarded to the Swedish Enforcement Authority. The Swedish Enforcement Authority would thus still handle some of the matters, although later in the process. On the whole, the Committee notes that the system is based on interplay between the law of damages, insurance compensation paid by insurance companies and criminal injuries compensation under public law. Changes made in any part of the system would have repercussions for the entire system. The Committee considers that there are insufficient grounds for making a change of this kind. The comparisons often made with and are therefore not entirely correct. In these countries, policies corresponding to home insurance policies do not cover personal injuries. There are other policies that may be relevant, but these do not seem to be as prevalent as Swedish home insurance policies (97 per cent of the population). Compensation corresponding to the Swedish compensation for violations of personal integrity is not included by any policy in , and generally not in , either. It would therefore appear that the policies play a greater role in . In addition, the Norwegian and Danish counterparts to the Crime Victim Compensation and Support Authority have longer processing times, which means that payment directly after a final and unappealable judgment in and does not in essence entail a difference in time. For this reason the Committee is not proposing that criminal injuries compensation be paid directly after a final and unappealable judgment. Accordingly, the Committee does not recommend changing the current arrangements, which means that the injured party must try to collect compensation from the person who caused the injury and from any insurance policy before applying for criminal injuries compensation. As previously, there will not be an unconditional requirement that the injured party must bring a court action for damages against the person who caused the injury in order for criminal injuries compensation to be paid. However, in terms of an investigation, initiating legal action is advantageous to the injured party. has considered whether the newly introduced vicarious liability for parents or guardians motivates a special regulation so that it is not necessary to exhaust the possibilities of also collecting damages from a parent or guardian before payment of criminal injuries compensation can be considered. As far as can be seen from the Swedish Enforcement Authoritys preliminary examinations, it does not take longer to receive a case report from the Authority when claims are also aimed at parents or guardians, and it also appears that frequency of payments is higher than in general. It is not known what impact vicarious liability has had on other public authorities, such as the Swedish Prosecution Authority or the courts. A lack of more detailed experience means that the Committee does not have enough data to determine whether the situation of injured parties has deteriorated due to vicarious liability. However, the Committee notes that as a result of vicarious liability, greater demands are placed on the injured party in that he or she must seek enforcement from more people and fill in more forms, and that there is reason to monitor the reform. The Committee considers that there are other measures that the relevant authorities can take to make matters easier for the injured party, for example with regard to digital information transmission. In view of the conclusion that the systems structure should be retained, the Committee proposes introducing a provision that criminal injuries compensation be granted for that portion of the injury not covered by other compensation that the injured party is entitled to due to the injury. Finally, it is the Committees opinion that there is no need for a provision on advance payment in the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act. This is because the Crime Victim Compensation and Support Authority has short processing times and can often grant compensation for such matters as violations of personal integrity even if compensation for pain and suffering needs to be examined further. proposes that a provision be introduced that, if the offender is known, the Crime Victim Compensation and Support Authority is to recover an amount from him or her corresponding to the criminal injuries compensation that was paid, in so far as this is not inappropriate in light of the offenders personal circumstances or the possibilities of the claim being paid. The regulation means that the practice followed by the Crime Victim Compensation and Support Authority, in accordance with its instructions, is given clearer support in the Act. further proposes that the state should assume the injured partys right to damages up to the amount that was paid in criminal injuries compensation plus subsequent running interest from the day of payment. This means that the Crime Victim Compensation and Support Authority has the right to interest on the amount in a similar way as the injured party had on damages. However, if the judgment does not include an order concerning interest, the Crime Victim Compensation and Support Authority is not entitled to any interest. also proposes that the Crime Victim Compensation and Support Authority be given the opportunity to enter into agreements that interest is not to be paid, and to deduct payments from the principal rather than from interest and costs. These opportunities available to the Crime Victim Compensation and Support Authority derive from the fact that the Authority owns its claims and are tools that it can use in its recourse activities to achieve a reasonable result (also for the person who caused the injury). The Crime Victim Compensation and Support Authority should also have the option of granting exemptions from recourse actions and interest claims, if there are special grounds for doing so. The Crime Victim Compensation and Support Authority should also be able to enter into agreements with offenders regarding payment of a certain part of the debt in return for writing off the remainder. The result of such an exemption is that the debt is cancelled. The provision on granting exemptions should only be used in exceptional cases. proposes that as a rule, the Crime Victim Compensation and Support Authority should set off a payment of criminal injuries compensation against a recourse claim for such compensation that has been paid. This means that, unlike at present, the person eligible for criminal injuries compensation (the injured party) cannot choose to receive the compensation in cash rather than using the money to pay a previous debt incurred by the person (in his or her capacity as the person who caused the injury). However, payments are not to be set off if this is considered inappropriate, i.e. if the compensation is intended for costs for essential dental care or other compensation of an urgent social nature. Children who have witnessed crime In 2006, children who witnessed violence against a close relative were, in certain circumstances, given the right to receive criminal injuries compensation. As far as the Committee can determine, the reform has not had the desired impact among the relevant authorities. Children who attend preliminary investigations are still not given the desired amount of attention. The Committee considers that legislative provisions are not necessary to encourage authorities to give attention to children who have witnessed crime. There is, however, reason to consider introducing provisions in the Preliminary Investigations Ordinance stating that injured parties are to be informed of the possibility for children to collect criminal injuries compensation. Also, it is to be noted in preliminary investigation reports that there were children on the scene, and also where they were situated. also considers that should consider creating special boxes on the reporting system to