sou · H3B374 · 2015-08-18 00:00:00 — –åtgärden har vidtagits i strid med i gällande grund- läggande förfaranderegler utan att den vuxne har fått möjlighet att komma till tals, och det inte har varit fråga om ett brådsk- ande fall, –åtgärden är oförenlig med en senare motsvarande åtgärd som har vidtagits i , eller –åtgärden är oförenlig med en senare motsvarande åtgärd som har vidtagits i en annan stat och som uppfyller kraven för erkän- nande i . Utredningen gör bedömningen att den nuvarande bestämmelsen om ordre public i 7 kap. lag kan tillämpas för att vägra att erkänna en åtgärd som är uppenbart oförenlig med grunderna för rättsordningen i . Utredningen föreslår att en berörd part får begära att den tings- rätt som regeringen föreskriver beslutar om erkännande eller icke- erkännande av en till godmanskap eller förvaltarskap motsvarande åtgärd som har vidtagits i ett annat land. Det bör i förordning före- skrivas att en ansökan om erkännande eller icke-erkännande ska göras till tingsrätten i den ort där den vuxne har hemvist. vuxne inte har hemvist i bör vara reservforum. Det förfarande som utredningen har föreslagit i fråga om en ansökan om erkännande eller icke-erkännande enligt ska tillämpas vid prövningen av erkännande eller icke-erkännande enligt lag. I övrigt föreslår utredningen att nuvarande bestämmelser i 5 kap. 1, 3 och 8 §§ ska upphöra att gälla samt att 5–7 §§ ska få en annan placering i 5 kap. och ges en språkligt sett modernare ut- formning. Det bör emellertid noteras att delar av 5 kap. 1 och 3 §§ har tagits in i den nya regleringen av behörighet och tillämplig lag, men att bestämmelserna har ändrats för att vara i linje med hem- vistprincipen. Särskilt om ordningen för placeringar av vuxna i en annan fördragsslutande stat bör göras allmänt tillämplig Gränsöverskridande insatser för vuxna har skett endast i fåtalet fall och det saknas enligt utredningen skäl att anta att sådana insatser, i vart fall , kommer att öka. Enligt utredningens bedömning finns det därför inte något behov av att göra ordningen för placeringar av vuxna i en annan fördragsslutande stat allmänt tillämplig och det bör således inte införas några auto- noma internationellt privaträttsliga bestämmelser i detta avseende. Eftersom ikraftträdandetidpunkt för utredningens lagförslag är bero- ende av tidpunkten för anslutning till konventionen, före- slår utredningen att det överlämnas till regeringen att bestämma när lagen som inkorporerar konventionen tillsammans med de kom- pletterande bestämmelserna ska träda i kraft. Detsamma bör enligt utredningens uppfattning gälla alla de övriga lagförslagen på grund av deras anknytning till konventionen. Även dessa föreslås gälla som lag och innebär att konventionens bestäm- melser är tillämpliga på åtgärder som vidtas efter det att konventionen har trätt i kraft i . I fråga om erkännande och verkställighet ska konventionens bestämmelser vara tillämpliga i fråga om åtgärder som har vidtagits efter det att konventionen har trätt i kraft mellan de två berörda staterna, det vill säga den stat där åtgärden har beslutats och den stat – för vår del – där det är aktuellt att erkänna eller verkställa åtgärden. När det gäller framtidsfullmakter gäller dock enligt konventionen att en fullmakt som har utfärdats innan konventionen har trätt i kraft för den fördragsslutande statens del inte ska betraktas som ogiltig om företrädaransvaret har beviljats på grunder som är jämförbara med de som anges i konventionen. Utredningen föreslår att det ska införas övergångsbestämmelser till lagändringarna lag. Lagen bör vara tillämplig på ären- den som anhängiggörs efter lagens ikraftträdande. Detta innebär att en myndighet som före ikraftträdandet utövar behörighet enligt äldre bestämmelser inte blir obehörig att handlägga frågan på grund av de nya bestämmelserna. Det innebär också att ärenden som har anhängiggjorts före ikraftträdandet ska prövas enligt äldre lag. Bestämmelserna om erkännande av åtgärder som har beslutats i ett annat land ska inte tillämpas på åtgärder som har beslutats före ikraftträdandet. Det finns inte något behov av några ytterligare övergångsbestäm- melser. The Inquiry has been tasked with considering ’s accession to The Hague Convention of 13 January 2000 on the International Protection of Adults (the 2000 Hague Convention). The Inquiry’s remit includes investigating how Swedish law relates to the provisions of the Convention and to shed light on the relationship to other international instruments in the area. The In- quiry is to consider how the Convention should be incorporated into Swedish law and whether should enter a reservation. The Inquiry is to propose statutory amendments. The remit also includes proposing the authority to be appointed as the Central Authority in relation to the 2000 Hague Convention and whether certain tasks should be carried out by the Central Authority or by other authorities or bodies. If, during the course of its work, the Inquiry should conclude that some related matter of private international law ought to be raised, the Inquiry is free to do so. Accession to the 2000 Hague Convention In today’s globalised society, needs to offer appropriate protection of adults in cross-border situations. The Inquiry there- fore proposes that accedes to the 2000 Hague Convention, through ratification by the Government, following the Riksdag’s approval of the Convention. The Convention is to be integrated into Swedish law through incorporation, which means that the provisions of the Convention will have the force of law in . This proposal covers Articles 1–50 of the 2000 Hague Convention, whereas the Inquiry considers that Article 51 should be included in an ordinance with supplementary provisions to the Convention and that the final provisions should not be incorporated. The provisions in the Convention to be incorporated are to be given priority in relation to other Contracting States. A provision to this effect has been added to the Act concerning Certain Inter- national Legal Relationships relating to Marriage and Guardianship (1904:26, p. 1) (the 1904 Act). The 2000 Hague Convention and proposed legislative amendments and supplementary provisions One of the purposes of the 2000 Hague Convention is to improve protection for adults who, by reason of an impairment or in- sufficiency of their personal faculties, are not in a position to pro- tect their interests in international situations. To achieve this pur- pose, the Convention contains provisions regulating which State’s authorities have jurisdiction to take measures in different situations and provisions on which State’s law is applicable. The issue of re- cognition of measures that have been taken in the other Contracting States is also regulated, as are the conditions for the enforcement of such measures. The Convention also contains provisions on co- operation between authorities in different Contracting States. The 2000 Hague Convention is applicable to measures for the protection of vulnerable persons from 18 years of age. The Con- vention covers both private law and public law measures of pro- tection. The measures may deal with curatorship, guardianship and analogous institutions as set out in foreign law. The designation of a support or contact person, or a personal assistant also falls within the scope of the Convention. Also included are placements of adults in so-called family homes (homes) or in an institutionalised , the placing of an adult under the protection of a judicial or administrative authority, and management of an adult’s property. However, the Convention does not regulate maintenance obligations, the conclusion, annulment and dissolution of marriage, marital property relations, social security, or decisions on the right of asylum and on immigration. Jurisdiction under the 2000 Hague Convention The 2000 Hague Convention regulates international jurisdiction of authorities in matters of measures of protection of adults. The provisions of the Convention, if the Convention is ratified by , grant Swedish authorities international jurisdiction when an adult is habitually resident in and in relation to adults in whose habitual cannot be established or who are internationally displaced. of habitual or, if it is not possible to determine habitual , the State of can abstain from exercising its jurisdiction in favour of authorities of the of which the adult is a national. Further, authorities of the in which the property of an adult is located have jurisdiction to take measures of protection with regard to the property. In addition, the Convention gives Swedish authorities jurisdiction in relation to adults who reside or are present in (or in relation to the property of adults in ) in urgent cases or in respect of territorial measures that only apply in . The Inquiry proposes the introduction of a legal provision on a reserve forum concerning competent social welfare committee in situations where Swedish jurisdiction exists under the 2000 Hague Convention but no social welfare committee has competence under the current Swedish regulatory framework. The Inquiry also pro- poses that the jurisdictional provisions in Chapter 5, Section 2 and 4 of the 1904 Act be repealed in urgent situations and cases when a foreign national is habitually resident in . Following accession to the 2000 Hague Convention, situations currently regulated by the above provisions will, namely, be covered by the Convention. The Inquiry considers that no other legislative amendments or supplementary legal provisions are required to enable compliance with the Convention’s provisions on jurisdiction. The 2000 Hague Convention has an in-built flexibility to enable international jurisdiction to be decided as far as possible with regard to the interests of the adult in each individual case. Under the Convention, it is possible for the authorities of two Contrac- ting States to agree which State’s authorities shall exercise juris- diction in a specific case on the basis of the interests of the adult. The possibility of ‘transferring’ jurisdiction requires that both states’ authorities agree that doing so is in the interests of the adult. The adult must also have some connection with the State to whose authorities jurisdiction will be transferred. The Inquiry’s assessment is that the right of a Swedish authority to submit a request for transfer of jurisdiction to an authority of another and the obligation to receive a correspon- ding request from an authority in another do not require legislative amendments or supplementary provisions. should any special authorities be appointed to which a request of transfer of jurisdiction would be directed. Instead, an authority of another should be permitted to direct a request either directly to a competent Swedish authority or to the Central Authority for transmission to the appropriate Swedish authority. The Inquiry also assesses that it is sufficient to prescribe in the form of an ordinance that the Central Authority should immediately transmit to the competent authority any request under the 2000 Hague Convention. Applicable law under the 2000 Hague Convention The 2000 Hague Convention contains provisions on which State’s law is to apply when a measure is taken for the protection of an adult. It follows of the main rule in the Convention, that Swedish authorities shall primarily apply Swedish law in exercising their juris- diction under the provisions of the Convention. However, the law of another State may be taken into account or applied in excep- tional cases. The Convention also contains provisions on the validity of a transaction between the adult’s representative and a third party. This provision gives some protection to a third party acting in good faith in cases where the adult’s representative is competent under the law of the State in which the transaction was concluded but lacks competence under the law designated as the governing law according to the provisions of the chapter on applicable law. Provisions on applicable law do not constitute an obstacle to applying legal provisions of the State in which the adult is to be protected, when the application of such provisions is mandatory irrespective of the otherwise applicable law (internationally mandatory provisions). If application of the law designated by the 2000 Hague Conven- tion would be manifestly contrary to the Swedish legal order, i.e. would be contrary to public policy, the provisions of that law may be set aside to extent found necessary. The Convention’s provisions on applicable law do not require any legislative amendments or supplementary provisions in Swedish law. Powers of representation granted in advance The 2000 Hague Convention covers the issue of applicable law with regard to powers of representation granted in advance by the adult, intended to be exercised when the adult is no longer in a position to protect his or her interests. This means that States which do not have the legal powers of representation but have acceded to the Convention may need to give effect to such durable powers of representation under another State’s law. Swedish law does not presently include powers of representation in the meaning of the Convention. The Convention regulates which State’s law is to apply to the existence, extent, modification and extinction of powers of repre- sentation granted by the adult. The adult has some discretion to designate the applicable law in the powers of representation. The competent authorities may also withdraw or modify the stipulated rights to represent the adult. The Inquiry proposes that the district court in the location where the adult is habitually resident be designated as the competent court for matters concerning powers of representation. If the adult is not habitually resident in , District Court is to be the reserve forum. The Court Matters Act (1996:242) is to be applied in the handling of these matters. If powers of represen- tation are in the future introduced in Swedish substantive law, the Inquiry considers that provision should be made for a Swedish competent authority to deal with all situations in which Swedish authorities have international jurisdiction. Recognition and enforcement under the 2000 Hague Convention As a general rule, a measure taken in a pursuant to the provisions of the 2000 Hague Convention is to be recognised in the other Contracting States. However, in some circumstances a measure need not be recognised. Such a situation exists if, for example, contrary to basic Swedish procedural rules, the measure was taken in the context of a proceeding without the adult having been provided the opportunity of being heard (does not apply to cases of urgency). Another ground for refusing recognition is if the measure is incompatible with a later measure which is recognised in . The concerned parties can request a Swedish authority to determine in a separate proceeding whether or not the measure is recognised in . If a measure taken in a is enforceable in that State, but enforcement is sought in , the measure shall on request be declared enforceable in . The same grounds for refusal that apply for recognition apply, however, and can thus lead to rejection of the application. When a measure has been declared enforceable in , it shall be enforced as if it had been taken in according to Swedish law. The Inquiry proposes certain supplementary provisions that are to apply in relation to both an application for a measure to be recognised or not recognised and to an application that a measure is to be declared enforceable in . One of these proposals is that the district court designated by the Government be a compe- tent authority, irrespective of the measure’s classification as a public or private law measure under Swedish rules. However, juris- diction is to be divided on the basis of whether the measure in full or in part concerns the person or the property of the adult. An application for recognition or declaration of enforceability that in full or in part refers to the adult’s person should be submitted to the district court in the location where the adult is habitually resident. If the adult is not habitually resident in , the appli- cation should be submitted to District Court. An appli- cation for recognition or declaration of enforceability with regard to an adult’s property should instead be submitted to the district court that examines appeals in debt recovery matters. The district court designated as the competent court in the individual case should in most cases be determined on the basis of the habitual of the other party to the person applying for the recognition or declaration of enforcement in of a foreign measure. If the other party is not habitually resident in , the application should be submitted to District Court. The Inquiry also proposes certain provisions concerning the procedure itself, such as what documents are to be lodged with the district court, and that, as a general rule, the documents must be translated into Swedish. As a decision may contain both rulings that are covered by the scope of the Convention and rulings that are not, the Inquiry proposes that it should be possible for a district court to declare that a decision is only applicable or enforceable in part. Further, the Inquiry proposes introducing a supplementary legislative provision on enforcement of a foreign measure. Under the proposal, the foreign measure is to be enforced in accordance with Swedish law and the applicable rules of enforcement of a Swedish decision in a corresponding issue. Cooperation, the Central Authority and provision of information under the 2000 Hague Convention A very important condition for the 2000 Hague Convention to function optimally is good cooperation between the authorities of the Contracting States and provision of information between them. The Convention therefore contains several provisions on this subject. Under the Convention, Contracting States are to designate a Central Authority. The Central Authority has certain tasks that are to be carried out either by the Central Authority itself or through other authorities or bodies. The provision of information on Swedish legislation, encouragement of mediation, conciliation or similar means to achieve agreed solutions and assistance in discovering the whereabouts of an adult in are examples of such tasks. The Inquiry has considered which authority should be designated as the Swedish Central Authority and concludes that responsibility for discharging this task should reside with . The Inquiry considers that the tasks of the Central Authority do not require any legislative amendments or supplementary provisions. The Convention also contains provisions on the communication of data and information between central authorities or other authorities in the Contracting States. These include the possibility for an authority in a that is considering measures to request that an authority in another com- municate relevant information. The Inquiry considers that incoming requests for information should not be centralised at the Central Authority. The view of the Inquiry is that the Swedish authority considering measures should also make the request. When the request comes from a foreign authority, the Swedish authority with relevant information is to be considered competent to handle such a request. If an adult is exposed to serious danger, concerned Swedish authorities are to inform the authorities in another Con- tracting State where the adult is present about the danger and the measures taken or under consideration. Information received by the Central Authority may refer to a person’s personal and financial circumstances. Currently, there is no secrecy provision in the Secrecy Act, OSL (1980:100) which would cover the Central Authority under the 2000 Hague Con- vention. The Inquiry proposes a secrecy provision to cover this information held by in its capacity as Central Authority under the 2000 Hague Conven- tion, if it can be expected that the adult or a close relative to the adult will suffer harm if the information is disclosed. Information subject to secrecy may not be communicated to a foreign authority unless it is communicated in accordance with a special provision in an act or ordinance, or if it would be permitted to communicate the information to a Swedish authority in a corre- sponding case, and the authority communicating the information deems that it is clearly compatible with Swedish interests for the information to be communicated to the foreign authority. In light of the Inquiry’s proposal that the Convention be integrated into Swedish law through incorporation, information may be communi- cated in accordance with the provisions of the Convention. The provisions on the communication of data and information do not require any legislative amendments or supplementary provisions. Under the Act (1998:204), transferring personal data to a State that is not a member of Union or part of Economic Area (EEA) is prohibited as a general rule if the State does not have an adequate level of personal data protection. However, the Government may issue general regula- tions prescribing exemptions from the prohibition on transmission of data if required having regard to a major public interest. This could lead to difficulties in applying the cooperation provisions of the 2000 Hague Convention. However, the Inquiry considers that cooperation under the Convention is to be considered of major public interest, and therefore an exemption from the prohibition on transmission of data is justified. Therefore, the Inquiry pro- poses introducing a legislative provision permitting communication of personal data to a third State, notwithstanding the provisions in the Act, if required to enable the authority to con- sider a necessary measure under the 2000 Hague Convention. Placement of adults in another Contracting State The 2000 Hague Convention provides a system which enables and facilitates placements of an adult in need of protection in an establish- ment or elsewhere in another . If an internatio- nally competent authority is contemplating the placement of an adult in another , it shall first consult with the Central Authority or other competent authority of the latter State. A report on the adult shall be transmitted together with the reasons for the proposed placement. The decision on the placement may not be made by the requesting State if the competent authority of the requested State indicates its opposition to the measure within a reasonable time. This means that it is up to each individual State to determine the specific conditions for the granting of a consent. A compulsory care order is in itself an intrusive measure. In light of statements by the Parliamentary Ombudsmen that care under the Care of cannot be carried out abroad, since the coercive powers and supervision included in care under the Care of cannot be exercised outside ’s borders, the Inquiry considers that compulsory care in another should not be permitted. This means that the only possible placements are those without coercive measures, such as a placement of the adult in equivalent to orders under the Act (2001:453) and the Act concerning Support and Service for Persons with Certain Functional Impairments (1993:387), or an order of placing the adult in another under these laws. The municipality in where the adult is proposed to receive is to be deemed a competent authority for examining a request for acceptance of a placement of an adult in , with regard to placements equivalent to those under the Act concerning Support and Service for Persons with Certain Functional Impair- ments.