{
  "attribution": {
    "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com",
    "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-2011-52",
    "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision",
    "version": "legal-2026-08-25",
    "proof": "sha256:8b9d852e4b7a4332f9968f9e1bc9c4a1d76e54ce28b0e525141fe840de44c088",
    "jurisdiction": "eu"
  },
  "@context": "https://schema.org",
  "@type": "SoftwareApplication",
  "applicationCategory": "LegalService",
  "name": "RH 2011:52, beslutsagent",
  "identifier": "avgorande-rh-2011-52",
  "url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-2011-52",
  "inLanguage": "sv",
  "about": "RH 2011:52, beslutsagent",
  "abstract": [
    "Vad som hände: Arbetsgivare har vid betalning av allmänt skadestånd innehållit viss del av beloppet som preliminärskatteavdrag.",
    "Vad domstolen sa: Hovrätten har funnit att skatteavdraget tillsammans med den inbetalning som gjorts innebär att arbetsgivaren har fullgjort sin betalningsskyldighet enligt domen på sådant sätt att hinder mot verkställighet förelåg hos Kronofogdemyndigheten.",
    "Varför det spelar roll: Avgörande från Svea hovrätt, 2011."
  ],
  "isBasedOn": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-2011-52",
  "softwareVersion": "3b53f25d6a832e3c",
  "citation": "avgorande-rh-2011-52, RH 2011:52, beslutsagent. ExploreWorld Legal, https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-2011-52 (hämtad 2026-08-29, bevis sha256:66f81175d1323ed6, 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-2011-52/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": "sha256:8b9d852e4b7a4332f9968f9e1bc9c4a1d76e54ce28b0e525141fe840de44c088",
  "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": "sha256:8b9d852e4b7a4332f9968f9e1bc9c4a1d76e54ce28b0e525141fe840de44c088",
    "revalidate_after": "2026-08-30T08:57:13.002Z",
    "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-2011-52",
  "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering"
}