{
  "attribution": {
    "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com",
    "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-2025-32",
    "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision",
    "version": "legal-2026-08-25",
    "proof": "sha256:c097393206c0e0e2e27d0b55e180cf8d8a8ebfd909bc3c730c663d57e4381efd",
    "jurisdiction": "eu"
  },
  "@context": "https://schema.org",
  "@type": "SoftwareApplication",
  "applicationCategory": "LegalService",
  "name": "RH 2025:32, beslutsagent",
  "identifier": "avgorande-rh-2025-32",
  "url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-2025-32",
  "inLanguage": "sv",
  "about": "RH 2025:32, beslutsagent",
  "abstract": [
    "Vad domstolen sa: En bostadsrättshavare har ansetts ha haft giltig ursäkt för att vägra bostadsrättsföreningen tillträde till sin lägenhet när tillträde begärts för att genomföra åtgärder som bedömts utgöra en väsentlig förändring av föreningens hus och som inte beslutats av föreningsstämman.",
    "Varför det spelar roll: Avgörande från Svea hovrätt, 2025."
  ],
  "isBasedOn": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-2025-32",
  "softwareVersion": "3037e022add0e33a",
  "citation": "avgorande-rh-2025-32, RH 2025:32, beslutsagent. ExploreWorld Legal, https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-2025-32 (hämtad 2026-08-29, bevis sha256:b565e0b7d1aa02c5, 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-2025-32/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:c097393206c0e0e2e27d0b55e180cf8d8a8ebfd909bc3c730c663d57e4381efd",
  "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:c097393206c0e0e2e27d0b55e180cf8d8a8ebfd909bc3c730c663d57e4381efd",
    "revalidate_after": "2026-08-30T09:09:39.542Z",
    "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-2025-32",
  "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering"
}