In Swedish civil cases, the court’s goal is to determine what most likely happened based on all the evidence presented. Sweden follows the principle of free evaluation of evidence, meaning there are no strict formal rules about what type of evidence is admissible or how much weight it should carry. Instead, judges assess the credibility and reliability of each piece of evidence independently and in context.
1. The Principle of Free Evaluation (Fri Bevisprövning)
Swedish courts apply fri bevisprövning, which means:
-
Any kind of evidence may be presented (documents, witness testimony, expert opinions, photos, recordings, etc.).
-
The court is free to decide what weight to give to each piece of evidence.
-
There are no rigid rules of proof such as hearsay prohibitions found in common law systems.
This approach gives the court broad flexibility to form a comprehensive view of the case.
2. The Burden and Standard of Proof
In civil cases, the burden of proof lies with the party making a claim. For example, a plaintiff claiming unpaid invoices must prove that a valid contract existed and that the work was performed.
The standard of proof is relatively low compared to criminal law: the court decides based on what is more likely than not (övervägande sannolikhet).
3. Types of Evidence Commonly Used
Typical forms of evidence in Swedish civil cases include:
-
Written documents – contracts, invoices, emails, text messages, and correspondence.
-
Witness testimony – from parties or third persons, often heard in person at trial.
-
Expert opinions – technical, medical, or financial assessments provided by specialists.
-
Photographs, recordings, and digital material – increasingly important in commercial and family disputes.
There is no discovery process like in some other jurisdictions, but each party must submit the evidence they wish to rely upon before the main hearing.
4. Credibility and Reliability
Judges (not juries) decide civil cases in Sweden. They evaluate evidence by considering factors such as:
-
Consistency of statements over time
-
The level of detail and plausibility of testimony
-
The witness’s relationship to the parties
-
Whether documentary evidence supports oral claims
Courts often attach greater weight to contemporaneous written evidence than to memory-based statements.
5. Expert Evidence
Experts may be appointed either by the parties or by the court itself. Court-appointed experts are rare but carry strong credibility. Party-appointed experts are common in technical or financial disputes; the court evaluates them on the same basis as other evidence.
6. Digital and Electronic Evidence
Swedish courts increasingly accept digital evidence, such as emails, chat logs, GPS data, or phone records, provided authenticity and integrity can be established. Screenshots and message logs can be used, though they must be presented clearly and reliably.
7. Oral Hearings and Evidence Presentation
At the main hearing (huvudförhandling), all evidence is presented orally before the judges. Witnesses and parties testify under oath, and the lawyers summarize the evidence in closing arguments. The judges then deliberate and decide based on the totality of the evidence.
8. No Exclusionary Rules
Unlike in some legal systems, Swedish courts rarely exclude evidence. Even unlawfully obtained material can, in exceptional cases, be considered if the court finds it relevant and not unreasonably prejudicial.
Conclusion
Swedish civil courts aim for a practical and fair evaluation of all available evidence, guided by reason, experience, and credibility. The flexible evidentiary rules and absence of technical barriers make Swedish litigation efficient and accessible for both domestic and foreign parties.
