Legal sources with official primary sources

Printed ·

SMLM Previewerrors, bugs and incomplete coverage may occurThe model is production-ready during Q4-26

Skip to main content
Skip to the answer
NovaCopilotA service from ExploreWorldAI

NovaCopilot's registers are reviewed daily against official sources

NJA 2012 s. 105

NJA 2012 s. 105, Supreme Court of Sweden (2012)

Judgment of Supreme Court of Sweden, 2012. Statutes applied: Arbetsmiljölag. The headnote below is reproduced verbatim in Swedish, as published by the court.

Original headnote (Swedish)

Fråga om tillämpning av straffrättens legalitetsprincip. Åklagaren yrkade företagsbot på grund av överträdelse av en bestämmelse i föreskrifter av Arbetarskyddsstyrelsen. Vid tidpunkten för brottet hänvisade straffbestämmelsen till en paragraf enligt vilken föreskrifter fick meddelas av regeringen eller, efter regeringens bestämmande, Arbetsmiljöverket. Kan företagsbot dömas ut?

Share this page

Core question

Fråga om tillämpning av straffrättens legalitetsprincip

The decision in three points

  1. What happened

    Åklagaren yrkade företagsbot på grund av överträdelse av en bestämmelse i föreskrifter av Arbetarskyddsstyrelsen.

  2. Why it matters

    Published as a guiding decision by Supreme Court of Sweden, 2012. Applies AML.

Related questions

Risk profile of the decision

HighThe decision carries substantial weight when relied upon. The reasons below show what the level rests on.

  • Published as a guiding decision by Supreme Court of Sweden
  • Applies one statute
  • 29 other decisions in the register apply the same statute

The decision in context

The decision is used in questions about employment law, and 5 question pages in the register rest on the same statute.

Relations of the decision in the graph

Statutes (1)

  • AMLSFS 1977:1160

Decisions (8)

Agent commands

  • runCaseSummary()

    The core question and the decision in three points, verbatim from the published summary.

  • runLegalImpact()

    Risk profile, statutes and the decisions applying the same statute.

  • runObligationCheck()

    Deterministic test of whether the decision is guiding for your question.

  • runProofVerify()

    Check that the hash you cite belongs to this node.

https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/node-agents/avgorande/nja-2012-s-105/manifest.json

NovaCopilot reasons out a short answer from statutes and case law, with the source right below. 5 answers a day are free.

NovaCopilot reasons: a short answer of at most 75 words, built only on our register, with the source right below.

Common questions

What compensation do I get for a delayed flight in the EU?How long can I return an online purchase in the EU?Can I ask a company to delete my personal data?What notice period applies under Swedish employment law?

Source: NovaCopilot

NovaCopilot, start page with all registers: case law, legislation, compliance and health.

Court
Supreme Court of Sweden
Decided
2012-03-23
Applies
1

Mål nr B 3361-10

Also searched as: NJA 2012 s 105, NJA 2012:105, NJA 2012 105, Nytt juridiskt arkiv 2012 s 105, Swedish judgment NJA 2012 s 105, Case NJA 2012 s. 105, NJA 2012 s. 105 2012, B 3361-10.

  • 4 kap. 8 § och 8 kap. 2 § arbetsmiljölagen (1977:1160)
Hämta hela domen

Hämtas direkt från Sveriges Domstolar när du klickar. Vi lagrar inte domen.

Högsta domstolen, Sveriges Domstolar

Official publication. The address points to the authority or court that published the row.

Verified, unchanged

Checked against the publisher 2026-09-20 · Next check 2026-10-20

See the open quality meter

Statutes

  • AML

    SFS 1977:1160 · Employment law

Case law

Case law read on 2026-09-05.

Change monitoring

The row is re-read against the publisher's own publication on a fixed interval. The dates below can be checked on the spot and travel with the API response.

Change monitoring
FieldValue
RegisterSök rättspraxis, Sveriges Domstolar
PublisherSveriges Domstolar
Last read2026-09-05
IntervalEvery 30 days
Next re-read2026-10-05
StatusRe-read scheduled
Open the register at the publisher

Row history

Dated events concerning this exact row, newest first. No event appears here without a date in a primary source.

Row history
DateEventSource
2026-09-05Row read against the courts' own registerSök rättspraxis, Sveriges Domstolar
2012-03-23Date of decision according to Högsta domstolenHögsta domstolen
1978-07-01Applied statute in force: SFS 1977:1160Sveriges riksdag

Monitoring states when the row was checked, not how the legal position should be assessed.

What changed this week, every Monday

A short letter with new judgments and rule changes in your areas, each with source and checksum. Free, unsubscribe any time.

Topics

Cite this row

The string below travels with a memo, a case file or an agent chain. The same string sits in the citation field of the API response.

NJA 2012 s. 105, Fråga om tillämpning av straffrättens legalitetsprincip. Åklagaren yrkade företagsbot på grund av överträdelse av en bestämmelse i föreskrifter av Arbetarskyddsstyrelsen. Vid tidpunkten för brottet hänvisade straffbestämmelsen till en paragraf enligt vilken föreskrifter fick meddelas av regeringen eller, efter regeringens bestämmande, Arbetsmiljöverket. Kan företagsbot dömas ut?. NovaCopilot, https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/nja-2012-s-105 (hämtad 2026-10-15, bevis sha256:4d01f13f95838941, bygge legal-2026-10-15).

Machine addressHow to cite the platform
sha256:
4d01f13f958389418080cfb05d8934157fe7ba69462ff5fcf088f93b6dada14b
hämtad:
2026-10-15
source_confidence:
official
bygge:
legal-2026-10-15
officiell källa:
https://rattspraxis.etjanst.domstol.se/sok/publicering/cf233d94-72bc-4cca-b899-b4f40ee5bb17

Official publication. The address points to the authority or court that published the row. Högsta domstolen, Sveriges Domstolar.

The row is a source reference with an official identifier. No legal advice and no compliance decision.