{
  "attribution": {
    "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com",
    "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-2016-66",
    "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision",
    "version": "legal-2026-08-25",
    "proof": "sha256:77cb43fa37a6ddba1c326de9e138c633ee9223e9d5667b673b64dc9c70083d8c",
    "jurisdiction": "eu"
  },
  "@context": "https://schema.org",
  "@type": "SoftwareApplication",
  "applicationCategory": "LegalService",
  "name": "RH 2016:66, beslutsagent",
  "identifier": "avgorande-rh-2016-66",
  "url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-2016-66",
  "inLanguage": "sv",
  "about": "RH 2016:66, beslutsagent",
  "abstract": [
    "Vad domstolen sa: I mål om utdömande av vite har det inte ansetts föreligga hinder mot att ompröva beslutet om vitesföreläggande då den part som föreläggandet riktats mot saknat möjlighet att få det materiellt överprövat.",
    "Varför det spelar roll: Avgörande från Svea hovrätt, 2015."
  ],
  "isBasedOn": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-2016-66",
  "softwareVersion": "df8ba9a304cb5da9",
  "citation": "avgorande-rh-2016-66, RH 2016:66, beslutsagent. ExploreWorld Legal, https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-2016-66 (hämtad 2026-08-29, bevis sha256:e7a4121a44e4fd9b, 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-2016-66/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": "sha256:77cb43fa37a6ddba1c326de9e138c633ee9223e9d5667b673b64dc9c70083d8c",
  "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": "sha256:77cb43fa37a6ddba1c326de9e138c633ee9223e9d5667b673b64dc9c70083d8c",
    "revalidate_after": "2026-08-30T08:05:25.343Z",
    "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-2016-66",
  "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering"
}