{
  "attribution": {
    "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com",
    "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-2016-38",
    "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision",
    "version": "legal-2026-08-25",
    "proof": "sha256:4f773291062998fd1b930d150a53c75de8e3e80ecac6c0a5c9db2f5dc63d2c17",
    "jurisdiction": "eu"
  },
  "@context": "https://schema.org",
  "@type": "SoftwareApplication",
  "applicationCategory": "LegalService",
  "name": "RH 2016:38, beslutsagent",
  "identifier": "avgorande-rh-2016-38",
  "url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-2016-38",
  "inLanguage": "sv",
  "about": "RH 2016:38, beslutsagent",
  "abstract": [
    "Vad domstolen sa: Rättegångsfel har inte ansetts föreligga när Kronofogdemyndigheten inte formellt delgett den tidigare bostadsrättshavaren underrättelsen om bostadsrättsföreningens ansökan om tvångsförsäljning och ansökan har grundats på en lagakraftvunnen exekutionstitel.",
    "Varför det spelar roll: Avgörande från Hovrätten över Skåne och Blekinge, 2016."
  ],
  "isBasedOn": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-2016-38",
  "softwareVersion": "b6c3f32cb27e3a50",
  "citation": "avgorande-rh-2016-38, RH 2016:38, beslutsagent. ExploreWorld Legal, https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-2016-38 (hämtad 2026-08-29, bevis sha256:395157f0cd243c09, 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-2016-38/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": "sha256:4f773291062998fd1b930d150a53c75de8e3e80ecac6c0a5c9db2f5dc63d2c17",
  "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": "sha256:4f773291062998fd1b930d150a53c75de8e3e80ecac6c0a5c9db2f5dc63d2c17",
    "revalidate_after": "2026-08-30T08:05:32.629Z",
    "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-2016-38",
  "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering"
}