{
  "attribution": {
    "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com",
    "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-1997-71",
    "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision",
    "version": "legal-2026-08-25",
    "proof": "sha256:5fdf15aeb657cba0bbf57fca45d15d6ca78055a72bad52bb84e32fa3081aaf56",
    "jurisdiction": "eu"
  },
  "@context": "https://schema.org",
  "@type": "SoftwareApplication",
  "applicationCategory": "LegalService",
  "name": "RH 1997:71, beslutsagent",
  "identifier": "avgorande-rh-1997-71",
  "url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-1997-71",
  "inLanguage": "sv",
  "about": "RH 1997:71, beslutsagent",
  "abstract": [
    "Vad domstolen sa: Arbetstagare, som sagts upp före arbetsgivarens konkurs och vars anställningsförhållande upphörde dagen efter det att arbetsgivaren försatts i konkurs, har inte ansetts skyldig att under den del av uppsägningstiden då han inte sysselsattes av arbetsgivaren anmäla sig till offentlig arbetsförmedling för att få rätt till lönegarantiersättning.",
    "Varför det spelar roll: Avgörande från Svea hovrätt, 1997."
  ],
  "isBasedOn": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-1997-71",
  "softwareVersion": "b26865d9bd124ec4",
  "citation": "avgorande-rh-1997-71, RH 1997:71, beslutsagent. ExploreWorld Legal, https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-1997-71 (hämtad 2026-08-29, bevis sha256:f3daf38babd5557d, bygge legal-2026-08-25).",
  "disclaimer": "Källhänvisning med officiell identifierare. Ingen juridisk rådgivning och inget efterlevnadsbeslut.",
  "potentialAction": {
    "@type": "SearchAction",
    "target": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/node-agents/avgorande/rh-1997-71/run?{&samma_lagrum,samma_instans,avgorande_ar_senare}"
  },
  "language": "sv",
  "source_language": "sv",
  "text_language": "sv",
  "available_languages": [
    "sv",
    "en",
    "no",
    "de"
  ],
  "translated_views": [
    "manifest.json",
    "ai.json"
  ],
  "source_only_views": [
    "script.json",
    "run",
    "monitor.json",
    "verify"
  ],
  "translated": false,
  "hash": "sha256:5fdf15aeb657cba0bbf57fca45d15d6ca78055a72bad52bb84e32fa3081aaf56",
  "version": "legal-2026-08-25",
  "expires": "2026-08-31T00:00:00.000Z",
  "dependency": {
    "index_version": "legal-2026-08-25+legal-2026-08-25+2026-08-25T10:00:00",
    "content_hash": "sha256:5fdf15aeb657cba0bbf57fca45d15d6ca78055a72bad52bb84e32fa3081aaf56",
    "revalidate_after": "2026-08-30T07:07:10.487Z",
    "max_copy_age_seconds": 3600,
    "policy": "revalidate-required; live-fetch-per-answer; attribution-required; no-derived-index",
    "changelog": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency",
    "verify": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify",
    "stale_copy_invalid": true
  },
  "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-1997-71",
  "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering"
}