sou · H9B364 · 2021-07-20 00:00:00 — Om sådana fordringar ges företräde framför andra fordringar utan företrädesrätt, kommer betydligt mer pengar att gå till betalning av fordringar som avser skadestånd på grund av brott och brottsoffren kommer snabbare få betalt. Det skulle bidra till att minska skadeverkningarna av brott och innebära att gärningspersoner med betalningsförmåga får vara med och finan- siera förslag som syftar till att ytterligare stärka brottsoffrens ställ- ning. Vi anser därför att det finns skäl att ändra företrädesordningen vid löneutmätning så att fordringar som avser skadestånd på grund av brott får företräde framför andra fordringar utan företrädesrätt. Den ändrade ordningen bör gälla för alla fordringar som avser skade- stånd på grund av brott. Höjda nivåer på kränkningsersättning, en utvidgad rätt till kränk- ningsersättning för vissa yrkesgrupper och särskild anhörigersättning kommer att leda till att fler gärningspersoner döms att betala högre skadestånd. Förslagen kommer också att leda till ökade kostnader för staten. Detta följer inte av de skadeståndsrättsliga reglerna utan av hur systemet för brottsskadeersättning är reglerat. Ändringar i utmätningsordningen kommer å andra sidan att innebära intäkts- ökningar och minskade utgifter för staten. I betänkandet lämnar vi förslag till finansiering av de ökade offentligfinansiella kostnader som våra förslag sammantaget förväntas leda till. Förslagen får vidare antas medföra vissa samhällsekonomiska konsekvenser på så sätt att fler gärningspersoner riskerar att bli in- solventa. Vi bedömer därför att förslagen om höjda ersättningsnivåer kan innebära en viss risk för att det brottsförebyggande arbetet för- svåras. Förslagen bedöms ha positiva konsekvenser för jämställdheten mellan kvinnor och män och i viss mån stärka barnrättsperspektivet i lagstiftningen. Vi anser att lagändringarna bör träda i kraft . Mot den bakgrunden föreslår vi ett ikraftträdande . Vi anser inte att det finns behov av några övergångsbestämmelser. Det betyder bland annat att de nya skadeståndsreglerna endast ska tillämpas på skadefall som har inträffat efter ikraftträdandet. Our main task has been to investigate the right of crime victims to damages and their possibility of obtaining this compensation. The explicit purpose of our remit has been to strengthen the position of crime victims and reduce the harmful effects of crime. Our remit can be summarised in four main questions: 1.To what extent should the levels of compensation for violations be increased? 2.To what extent should the right of officers and certain other occupational groups to compensation for violations be increased? 3.How can the right of surviving relatives to damages for non-finan- cial loss be strengthened? 4.How should the rules prohibiting attachment of damages on account of a deprivation of be amended so as make attach- ment to the benefit of crime victims more possible? In conjunction with the fourth question we have also taken up the question of a change of the order of priority for attachment of earn- ings etc. Compensation for violations – valuing the invaluable Damages for violations on account of a criminal offence, called ‘com- pensation for violations’, is a form of damages for pure non-financial loss that does not require there to have been any physical injury. Compensation for a violation can be considered if someone seriously violates another person through a criminal offence that includes an attack on their person, , peace or honour (Chapter 2, Section 3 of the Tort Liability Act). The compensation for the violation is intended to compensate the person who has been violated for the negative feelings caused by the criminal attack, e.g. fear, humiliation, shame or the like. The size of the compensation for the violation is determined on the basis of what is reasonable in view of the nature and duration of the act (i.e. the criminal attack) (Chapter 5, Section 6, first paragraph of the Tort Liability Act). Moreover, particular con- sideration is to be given to certain circumstances enumerated in the provision. The starting point is that it is the violation that can typi- cally be presumed to have arisen through the attack that is to be considered. This means that the compensation is determined from an objective perspective. However the task of determining the size of the compensation is essentially about putting a value on something that cannot be valued in money – the violation involved in being a victim of a crime. Compensation for violations should be increased Compensation for violations is part of a dynamic system of com- pensation. This means that the levels of compensation are intended to change over time, depending partly on the development of society and changes in the value of money. The development of other forms of damages for non-financial loss also play a role. One main question in our remit has been to consider to what extent the sums currently awarded in compensation for violations to crime victims should be increased. Since our remit is to put a value on something that is, in many ways, invaluable, we realise that it is not possible to present proposals that everyone will view as satisfactory. The aim should in- stead be to shape a compensation system with an internal rationality in which equally severe attacks are treated alike and attacks differing in severity are treated differently. Our ambition has been to examine whether there are rational rea- sons for changing the levels of compensation. the past 20 years compensation levels have only moved upwards for a few offences. The increases that have taken place have, in view of changes in the value of money, been marginal. When it comes to many types of criminal offences, compensation levels have not changed at all, which means that the compensation has decreased in real terms. the same period the protection of physical and sexual integrity has been strengthened and assigned higher value. This has happened through the introduction of more severe penalties concerning serious violent and sexual offences and serious offences against peace and freedom. The stronger protection of physical integrity and the stricter view of offences aimed at it have not come to be reflected in a reasonable way in the levels of compensation for these offences. In a comparison, moreover, the compensation levels for violations on account of crim- inal offences appear to be low in relation to the compensation levels regarding other types of damages for pure non-financial loss. We have therefore concluded that there is a need for higher levels of compen- sation for violations on account of criminal offences. The proposals we present in this part of our remit are intended to bring about dis- tinct increases in compensation levels. A general increase to give crime victims redress We propose that compensation for violations should be determined in a way that means that the person violated is given redress for the attack. There is reason to question whether present levels of compen- sation contribute to giving crime victims sufficient redress. This amendment is intended to lead to clear increases in compensation levels regarding all types of offences. After the amendment, the re- dress component should be given consideration as part of the usual examination of the level of the violation. The need for redress can typically be presumed to increase as the degree of the violation in- creases. The more serious the violation has been, the greater the need for redress should thus be considered to be. Chapter 5, Section 6 of the Tort Liability Act states which factors are given particular consideration in determining the size of compensa- tion for violations. In view of the serious violation involved in certain types of acts, we consider that there are some additional circum- stances that should be given consideration in this type of assessment. This involves circumstances whose effect is typically to raise the degree of the violation. The introduction of these circumstances will make relative increases in compensation levels possible in more cases than at present. This involves situations where the criminal act: •was aimed at a person with whom the person liable for damages has or has previously had a close relationship (e.g. violence in close relationships); •was recorded using a technical aid in conditions that have entailed a risk that the recording will be disseminated (e.g. when filming violent or sexual offences); •was performed by several persons together against the person harmed (e.g. assault or robbery performed by a gang against a sin- gle crime victim); or •included a threat that was substantially reinforced by allusion to a capacity for violence (e.g. threats related to organised crime). The right to compensation for violations for officers and other occupational groups with special preparedness should be expanded One fundamental condition for a person harmed to have the right to compensation for a violation under Chapter 2, Section 3 of the Tort Liability Act is that they have been subjected to a serious violation. According to the applicable case law, more is required than would otherwise be the case for it to be considered that a officer has been subjected to a serious violation when they have been subjected to a criminal attack in the course of their duties. The same applies to persons in certain other occupational groups. The reason for this is that the assessment of seriousness gives consideration to the person harmed having certain training and experience as well as work duties and powers in their occupation that mean that they have special pre- paredness to be subjected to certain types of attack. A preparedness that other crime victims do not normally have. It is mainly officers, security guards and certain employees in the Swedish Prison and , the Swedish Customs and psychiatric care that can be considered to have this type of special preparedness. These are occupational groups that have reason to have that kind of prepared- ness in view of their work duties, powers, training and equipment. In contrast, teachers and social workers, for example, should not be considered to have any preparedness in this regard. If a person in an occupational group with special preparedness has been subjected to a criminal offence in the course of their duties and the attack has entailed a serious violation, they do, however, get as high compen- sation for violation as other crime victims. A serious violation should also continue to be required for persons in occupational groups with special preparedness to be given compen- sation for violation. However, we consider that more attacks on per- sons in these occupational groups should give them the right to compensation for violation. Our view is that there is scope for such a development without departing from the requirement of a serious violation. In our assessment, the right to compensation for violation for a person subjected to a criminal offence in the course of their duties should be made stronger and clearer than it currently is. We propose that guidelines should be introduced in law for assessing whether a violation has been serious and that particular consideration should be given to whether: •the attack was aimed at their private sphere; or •whether it was a physical attack. Deliberately targeted and intentional physical attacks should, for example, lead to a right to compensation for a violation in more cases than at present. By making these proposals we want to ensure that com- pensation for a violation is paid in the cases where the person harmed has been subjected to a serious violation. A right to special compensation for relatives should be introduced Since 2002, close relatives of a person who has been killed through an act constituting grounds for damages have a statutory right to damages for personal injury, mainly mental health problems, caused to them as a result of the death; this is called ‘compensation for relatives’ (Chapter 5, Section 2, first paragraph, point 3 of the Tort Liability Act). The provision is based on case law developed by the Supreme Court in the 1990s. The part of the personal injury compensation that relates to physi- cal and mental suffering of short duration (called ‘pain and suffer- ing’) is normally determined using tables drawn up by the Road Traffic Injuries Commission. Certain standardised amounts of com- pensation have been adopted in case law for compensation to relatives based on these tables. In cases of intentional killing or when a death has been caused by gross negligence that is very close to intentional killing, the compensation is currently set at 000. time compensation to relatives has been criticised because the level of compensation appears to be low. One of the reasons for this is that it is designed as compensation for personal injury. We consider that there are no reasons to change the existing compensa- tion to relatives now. However, we propose that a right to damages for a pure non-financial loss called ‘special compensation to relatives’ should be introduced for surviving relatives alongside the personal injury compensation. This is not intended as compensation for ‘nor- mal’ mourning and bereavement, but is instead intended to confirm and provide redress for the traumatic feelings that typically arise when someone loses a close relative through a criminal and perhaps very violent incident. We therefore propose that there should be a right to special compensation to relatives in cases where someone has either intentionally or through gross negligence caused another person’s death through a criminal offence. However, exceptions should be made in cases where it would appear to be directly offensive (manifestly unreasonable) to pay this compensation. This can, for instance, involve cases in which a relative has participated in the death in a way that is relevant under criminal law. The persons entitled to compensation should be the same group of relatives as has the right to the present statutory compensation to relatives regarding personal injuries, i.e, the persons who were partic- ularly close to the deceased. We propose that the special compensation to relatives should be determined in a standardised way irrespective of the circum- stances in the particular case and as a sum of the same size for each relative entitled to compensation. However, as is the case for many other forms of damages for pure non-financial losses, the starting point should be that the compensation should be set at a reasonable amount. This enables the size of the compensation to grow over time. We consider that at present a sum of 000 is reasonable. Along with the personal injury compensation, a relative of a person who has died as a result of an intentional or grossly negligent offence should receive more than 000 in damages. If the perpetrator is unable to pay damages and there is no insur- ance policy that covers the whole loss either, the person harmed has the right to criminal injury compensation from the State. It should be possible to get criminal injury compensation for the loss that is compensated for under the proposed provision on special compensa- tion to relatives. Better possibilities of attachment to the benefit of crime victims It should be possible to attach compensation for a deprivation of in more cases if there are debts to crime victims In view of its personal nature, damages on account of a violation of personal integrity are protected from attachment to a great extent (Chapter 5, Section 7 of the Enforcement Code). The prohibition of attachment includes damages on account of a deprivation of . The most common form of damages of this kind is compensation under the Act concerning Damages for Deprivation of and other Coercive Measures (1998:714) (the Deprivation of ). However, damages on account of deprivation of can also be payable pursuant to the rules of the Tort Liability Act in certain cases. Since the prohibition of attachment was given its present design, a large number of reforms have been implemented to strengthen the rights of crime victims. One way of further strengthening the rights of crime victims can be to make it easier for crime victims to have damages awarded paid. A study we have carried out shows that a considerable proportion of the persons who receive compensation under the Deprivation of also have unpaid debts relating to damages on account of criminal offences. In principle, compen- sation under the Deprivation of does not require any form of negligence, any fault or negligence in the exercise of public authority or any breach of convention. Against this background, we have found that a crime victim’s interest in being paid should carry more weight than the interest of the person previously deprived of their in being able to benefit from this compen- sation. We therefore propose that it should be possible to attach this kind of compensation for payment of debts that relate to damages on account of criminal offences. We propose that the amended system should apply to all financial claims that relate to damages on account of criminal offences. As a consequence, the Swedish Crime Victim Compensation and Support Authority’s demands for payment of financial claims for damages that the Authority has taken over from crime victims will be covered. Damages for criminal offences should be given higher priority in the attachment of earnings Attachment of earnings is the most common form of enforcement regarding debtors who are natural persons. They account for around a third of the sum collected by the Swedish Enforcement Authority each year. If attachment of earnings takes place in several cases at the same time, the money that comes in is distributed according to a special order of priority. Financial claims regarding damages on account of criminal offen- ces do not have priority in the attachment of earnings. If these finan- cial claims are given priority ahead of other financial claims without priority rights, much more money will go to the payment of financial claims relating to damages on account of criminal offences, and the crime victims will be paid more quickly. This would contribute to reducing the harmful effects of crime and mean that perpetrators with the ability to pay will also have to share in financing proposals intended to further strengthen the position of crime victims. We therefore consider that there are reasons to change the order of prio- rity in attachment of earnings so that financial claims that relate to damages on account of criminal offences are given priority ahead of other financial claims without a right of priority. The amended order of priority should apply to all financial claims that relate to damages on account of criminal offences. Impacts of the proposals Higher levels of compensation for violations, an expanded right to compensation for violations for certain occupational groups and spe- cial compensation to relatives will lead to more perpetrators being ordered by the courts to pay higher damages. The proposals will also lead to increased costs for central government. This follows not from the regulations in the law of torts but from how the system for crim- inal injury compensation is regulated. On the other hand, changes to the system of attachment will result in revenue increases and reduced expenditure for central government. In our report we present proposals for financing the increased costs to public finances that our proposals are expected to lead to overall. Our proposals are also presumed to have certain economic impacts in that more perpetrators risk becoming insolvent. We therefore make the assessment that the proposals of higher levels of compensation may entail some risk that crime prevention work will be impeded. The proposals are judged to have positive impacts on gender equality and to strengthen the child perspective in the legislation to some extent. Entry-into-force and transitional provisions We consider that the legislative amendments should enter into force as soon as possible. Against that background we propose entry into force on 1 2022. We consider that there is no need for transitional provisions. One consequence is that the new rules for damages will only be applied to claims that occur after their entry into force. 1.1Förslag till lag om ändring i utsökningsbalken Härigenom föreskrivs att 4 kap. 11 §, 5 kap. 7 § och 7 kap. 14 § utsökningsbalken ska ha följande lydelse. Har två eller flera sökt utmät- Har två eller flera sökt utmät- ning mot samma gäldenär, skall ning mot samma gäldenär, ska utmätning för fordringarna ske utmätning för fordringarna ske , om ej utmätning för , om inte utmätning för någon av fordringarna därigenom någon av fordringarna därigenom Om utmätningen avser ersätt- ning enligt 2–4 §§ lagen (1998:714) om ersättning vid frihetsberövan- den och andra tvångsåtgärder gäller första stycket endast för sökande med fordringar som avser skade- stånd på grund av brott. Bestämmelserna i 7 kap. 17 § första stycket om jämkning av underhållsbidrag vid utmätning av lön tillämpas även vid annan ut- mätning. 1Senaste lydelse 1995:298. Skadestånd, som tillkommer gäldenären med anledning av personskada, frihetsberövande, falskt åtal, ärekränkning eller annat sådant, får inte utmätas medan skadeståndet innestår hos den som ska betala det. Om skadeståndet har bestämts att betalas som livränta, gäller det som har sagts nu rätten till liv- räntan.När skadeståndet har betalats ut, får det som hålls avskilt inte utmätas, om skadeståndet ska tillgodose ett försörjningsbehov som fortfarande finns kvar eller, i annat fall, om mindre än har gått från det att pengarna betalades ut.Om utmätningsfordringen av- ser skadestånd på grund av brott, gäller första och andra styckena inte i fråga om ersättning enligt 2– 4 §§ lagen (1998:714) om ersätt- ning vid frihetsberövanden och andra tvångsåtgärder. Skadestånd, som tillkommer gäldenären med anledning av personskada, frihetsberövande, falskt åtal, ärekränkning eller annat sådant, får ej utmätas medan skadeståndet innestår hos den som skall utge det. Har skade- ståndet bestämts att utgå som livränta, gäller vad som har sagts nu rätten till livräntan. Sedan skadeståndet har betalats ut, får vad som hålls avskilt ej utmätas, om skade- ståndet skall tillgodose försörj- ningsbehov som alltjämt kvarstår eller, i annat fall, om mindre än har förflutit från det att medlen betalades ut. Vid utmätning av lön har följande fordringar i nämnd ordning företräde framför andra fordringsanspråk: 1.fordran som avser underhållsbidrag enligt och , 2.konkursbos fordran på gäldenärens lön enligt 3 kap. 4 § kon- kurslagen (1987:672), om lönen innehållits under konkursen, 2Senaste lydelse 2004:479. 3.fordran som avses i 2 § lagen (1993:891) om indrivning av statliga fordringar m.m. 4.fordran som avser skade- stånd på grund av brott. Företrädesrätten enligt första stycket 1 gäller även sådant utländskt underhållsbidrag som får verkställas i , om bidragsfordringen vid verkställighetstillfället inte är äldre än . Denna lag träder i kraft . Den som allvarligt kränker någon annan genom brott som innefattar ett angrepp mot dennes person, frihet, frid eller ära ska ersätta den skada som kränk- ningen innebär.När den som utsätts för brott i tjänsten får anses ha haft en sär- skild beredskap för angreppet, ska det vid bedömningen av om kränkningen är allvarlig särskilt beaktas om1. angreppet riktar sig mot den skadelidandes privata sfär, eller2. det är fråga om ett fysiskt angrepp.3 a §Den som uppsåtligen eller av grov oaktsamhet genom brott orsakar en annan persons död, ska betala särskild anhörigersättning till den som stod den avlidne sär- skilt nära. Detta gäller dock inte om det är uppenbart oskäligt. 1.2Förslag till lag om ändring i skadeståndslagen (1972:207)