[ad_1]
SINGAPORE: In pursuit of justice, a 35-year-old Singaporean lady has taken her case to the European Court docket of Human Rights (ECHR) after being disadvantaged of her proper to a good trial in Sweden. Represented by her Swedish lawyer, Jan Södergren, she claims that Sweden’s authorized system violated her basic human rights.
The ordeal started in March 2022 when she lodged an attraction in opposition to an property division choice within the Stockholm District Court docket, Sweden. Nonetheless, her efforts confronted a setback when the Defendant demanded safety for prices, demanding a considerable sum of cash to proceed along with her case.
This requirement was based mostly on Swedish legal guidelines from 1980, wherein the court docket determined upon technical grounds compelling her to place up S$102,394.80 (equal to SEK 800,000) in Sweden as Safety for Prices. Sadly, resulting from anti-money laundering rules from 2017, no Swedish financial institution, lawyer, or court docket might settle for her funds. Consequently, she entrusted the cash to her lawyer, Alfred Dodwell, in Singapore.
Regardless of her vital efforts, the Stockholm District Court docket rejected her endeavours, deeming them inadequate. Unyielding, she appealed to the Svea Excessive Court docket in Sweden, hoping for a extra equitable analysis of her state of affairs. Tragically, her attraction was once more dismissed on 14 November 2022, leaving her with restricted avenues for justice.
In a closing try and vindicate her rights, she appealed to the Supreme Court docket of Sweden on 22 December 2022, submitting Alfred Dodwell’s statutory declaration and a brand new letter of enterprise to exhibit her willingness to conform. Nonetheless, her plea for justice was denied once more, because the Supreme Court docket refused to grant her go away to attraction on 28 March 2023.
All through this distressing course of, the Singaporean lady confronted over seven objections to offering safety for prices, together with requests for banker’s ensures. The system appeared impervious to her plight, elevating considerations about Sweden’s lack of consideration for the way a international non-public citizen might realistically adjust to the court docket’s calls for.
The Swedish regulation enacted in 1980 (SFS 1980:307) stipulates that international residents should present safety for the counterparty’s authorized charges (Safety Regulation). Nonetheless, no ample provisions have been made for conditions like hers, the place the ordered quantity was disproportionate to her monetary circumstances. Moreover, the Court docket’s reliance on arcane Swedish legal guidelines from 1936 regarding third-party pledges solely added to the complexities she confronted in in search of a good trial.
In gentle of those circumstances and the potential violation of her human rights, the Singaporean lady has turned to the European Court docket of Human Rights (ECHR), in search of their intervention and a simply decision to her case.
She hopes that the ECHR will uphold the ideas of equity and justice and handle the inherent imbalance that has prevented her from accessing a good trial in Sweden. She believes that this case extends past her particular person wrestle and is about preserving the elemental rights of all people to a good and simply authorized course of.
This case prompts reflection on what number of foreigners might have been denied entry to the court docket and attraction course of resulting from this obvious bias in opposition to international people.
For media inquiries and additional data, contact: Khan Zhi Yan at khanzhiyan@gmail.com
Ship in your scoops to information@theindependent.sg
Associated Posts
– Commercial –
[ad_2]
Source link
