{
  "attribution": {
    "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com",
    "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-2010-48",
    "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision",
    "version": "legal-2026-08-25",
    "proof": "sha256:c75483b9dc21c47e21d9bb6e231a53ad1fca997fd21463e8c1fd6133e0dc9e3e",
    "jurisdiction": "eu"
  },
  "@context": "https://schema.org",
  "@type": "SoftwareApplication",
  "applicationCategory": "LegalService",
  "name": "RH 2010:48, beslutsagent",
  "identifier": "avgorande-rh-2010-48",
  "url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-2010-48",
  "inLanguage": "sv",
  "about": "RH 2010:48, beslutsagent",
  "abstract": [
    "Vad som hände: En anbudsgivare i en offentlig upphandling som inte visat rimlig aktsamhet för att begränsa sin skada genom att begära överprövning av ett tilldelningsbeslut har fått sin rätt till skadestånd gentemot den upphandlande enheten nedsatt till noll.",
    "Varför det spelar roll: Avgörande från Hovrätten över Skåne och Blekinge, 2010."
  ],
  "isBasedOn": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-2010-48",
  "softwareVersion": "3b9f43b7317ca618",
  "citation": "avgorande-rh-2010-48, RH 2010:48, beslutsagent. ExploreWorld Legal, https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-2010-48 (hämtad 2026-08-29, bevis sha256:dcaa326e6e93dd98, 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-2010-48/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:c75483b9dc21c47e21d9bb6e231a53ad1fca997fd21463e8c1fd6133e0dc9e3e",
  "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:c75483b9dc21c47e21d9bb6e231a53ad1fca997fd21463e8c1fd6133e0dc9e3e",
    "revalidate_after": "2026-08-30T10:03:06.469Z",
    "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-2010-48",
  "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering"
}