{
  "attribution": {
    "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com",
    "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-2011-10",
    "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision",
    "version": "legal-2026-08-25",
    "proof": "sha256:2fc22c624a256e16810840a4813f1ea7ed4f6bbad297b1071c6270bee8e48553",
    "jurisdiction": "eu"
  },
  "@context": "https://schema.org",
  "@type": "SoftwareApplication",
  "applicationCategory": "LegalService",
  "name": "RH 2011:10, beslutsagent",
  "identifier": "avgorande-rh-2011-10",
  "url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-2011-10",
  "inLanguage": "sv",
  "about": "RH 2011:10, beslutsagent",
  "abstract": [
    "Vad domstolen sa: Ett ombud som vid tingsrätten skrivit svaromål på engelska språket och därvid angett sig ha problem med bemästrandet av svenskt juridiskt språk samt gett in inlagor på norska språket har inte ansetts behärska svenska språket och därmed avvisats som ombud.",
    "Varför det spelar roll: Avgörande från Hovrätten över Skåne och Blekinge, 2011."
  ],
  "isBasedOn": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-2011-10",
  "softwareVersion": "16f98bc7e3df67d7",
  "citation": "avgorande-rh-2011-10, RH 2011:10, beslutsagent. ExploreWorld Legal, https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-2011-10 (hämtad 2026-08-29, bevis sha256:5c6c99a665c1ccc2, 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-2011-10/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": "sha256:2fc22c624a256e16810840a4813f1ea7ed4f6bbad297b1071c6270bee8e48553",
  "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": "sha256:2fc22c624a256e16810840a4813f1ea7ed4f6bbad297b1071c6270bee8e48553",
    "revalidate_after": "2026-08-30T08:05:27.804Z",
    "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-2011-10",
  "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering"
}