Back to the map of Europe

Sweden (2016)

 
 Print version



  • INTRODUCTION (History, purpose of the review and classification of administrative acts, definition of an administrative authority)

    • 1. Main dates in the evolution of the review of administrative acts

      At an early stage in Sweden’s history the king exercised judicial authority. As time went by, the king was perceived as a sort of court of appeal. The general courts developed earlier than the administrative courts. The first administrative court was a court of appeal and was established in 1799. By the beginning of the 1900s the review function had broken out and the judicial function was directed to reconsidering tax cases and administrative matters.

      The administrative cases became a steadily growing burden on the Government. The Supreme Administrative Court was established in 1909. Fundamentally, the Supreme Administrative Court assumed responsibility for cases relating to judicial application while the Government reserved its right to rule in cases of appropriateness of the law involved.

      The system of the administrative courts was progressively developed and was completed in 1979. A considerable part of the review was however still reserved to the Government.

      During the last years of the 20th century more and more cases were transferred from the Government to the administrative courts. Generally speaking, today all administrative decisions which affect an individual’s civil rights can be brought under the review of the administrative courts. Cf. question 25.

    • 2. Purpose of the review of administrative acts

      Most cases before the administrative courts are lodged by an appeal against a decision taken by an administrative authority. There are two main categories of appeal. The first and most important one encompasses most disputes between public authorities and private individuals. Examples of such cases are tax cases and social insurance cases. The ruling of the court will then relate both to legality and the appropriateness of the appealed decision and the ruling of the court will supersede the decision which was reached by the administrative authority. This type of appeal aims to control the application of the law by the administrative authorities and to protect individual rights.

      The second, more limited category of appeal encompasses decisions taken by local or regional authorities that operate within the municipal self-government sector. On petition by any individual living in the municipality or region involved, a decision by these authorities can be sent for review by an administrative court. Such an appeal is however limited to a pure assessment of legality and permits only a simple rejection.

      Besides the above mentioned judicial remedies, actions in different types of cases can be brought to the administrative courts through application. For such cases, there are no prior administrative decisions. Instead the authority in question makes an application at the court. This category includes cases involving inter alia the non-voluntary taking into care of children or adult drug-abusers and psychiatric care.

    • 3. Definition of an administrative authority

      In the legislative history of the Instrument of Government (part of the Constitution) it has been stated that administrative authorities are such bodies which are part of the organisation for state or municipal public administration. No general definition has been given.

      When the question sometimes arises whether a certain body is an administrative authority or some other kind of body (e.g. a foundation), the court has to consider the matter with regard to the law concerned. In practice, there are on one hand central and local government authorities and on the other hand municipal and regional authorities.

    • 4. Classification of administrative acts

      With regard to the possibility of review by the administrative courts, there is a substantial difference between administrative decisions on one hand where the authority has applied a law or a regulation on an individual case and thereby decided about rights or obligations for a person (natural or legal), and on the other hand where the authority has decided to issue general directions in some respect.

      The former, but not the latter, can be an object of review by the courts. Physical acts of an administrative authority cannot in themselves be the object of appeal, only the decision to undertake the act. As for contracts awarded by administrative authorities, they are – with the exception of cases concerning the specific rules for public procurement – considered as civil cases and tried only by the general courts.

  • I – ORGANIZATION AND ROLE OF THE BODIES, COMPETENT TO REVIEW ADMINISTRATIVE ACTS

  • II – JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTS

    • A. ACCESS TO JUSTICE

      • 21. Preconditions of access to the courts

        Cf. question 4. As for the rest, the only precondition for the right to appeal against an administrative decision is that the complainant is directly affected in some way by the decision and that the decision goes against his wishes (there are of course also necessary conditions concerning legal competence etc.)

        If the law provides that review should first be made by a higher administrative authority such a review must first take place. Appeal is then made to an administrative court against the second decision. An appeal must be done in writing.

      • 22. Right to bring a case before the court

        There are no specific restrictions as to who may bring a case before an administrative court, but the complainant must fulfil the general pre-condition mentioned in question 21. Accordingly, every natural or legal person who is directly affected by an administrative decision can on principle appeal to a court. As for legal persons, this means a more limited possibility since they are only considered to be affected by certain types of administrative decisions, like decisions on their taxation and construction permits for their real estate.

        As for administrative bodies, there are some examples of provisions allowing a municipality to bring a case before a court. And there are certain decisions that must be taken directly by a court on the demand of an administrative body (like cases about taking children into care). But generally, administrative authorities only appear as the opposite party to a private person who has made an appeal to a court.

      • 23. Admissibility conditions

        Cf. questions 21 and 22. If it is unclear whether a complainant is affected by the decision appealed against – it is usually evident if that is the case or not – he must state the reasons why he considers himself entitled to appeal.

      • 24. Time limits to apply to the courts

        Appeals against administrative decisions must be made within certain time- limits. This is usually three weeks after the communication of the decision. For certain types of decisions longer time-limits are provided (tax cases and cases concerning social insurance). Authorities and courts are obliged to inform parties about time-limits and other formal conditions for appeal. The court can not grant an extension of the time-limit for appeal, but once the appeal has been made on time, the documents may be completed later (however, this does not apply to municipal appeals). There is also an extraordinary means to grant an extended time-limit in cases where the complainant can prove that he could not make the appeal on time because of reasons beyond his control.

        Time-limits are calculated starting the day after the formal communication of the decision to the claimant. The corresponding day of the week three weeks later is the limit for appeal. When longer time-limits are provided, the time- limit will be the corresponding date e.g. two months later. When a time-limit ends on a Sunday or a public holiday the appeal may be made on the following day. As for administrative bodies the time-limit is calculated starting the day after the decision.

      • 25. Administrative acts excluded from judicial review

        Cf. question 2 and 4. Administrative acts which do not concern rights, obligations or interests of private or legal persons are on principle not open to review by the courts (with the exception of the legal review of decisions taken in the sector of municipal self-government). Decisions taken during the administrative procedure, e.g. to circulate a document for comment, are not open to review unless otherwise stated. Only the final decision may be the object of appeal.

        In this context it should be mentioned that there are still some administrative issues where the Government will take the final decision and where there is no ordinary appeal to an administrative court (cf. question 1). These issues are such where political considerations are predominant (e.g. city planning, the localization of railways etc.). When such decisions affect an individual’s civil rights he has the possibility to bring the decision under review by the Supreme Administrative Court. The review, so called Judicial Review, is strictly legal but takes into account not only the law applied but also general legal principles and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. If the Court finds that a legal principle has been infringed the Court may quash the decision. There is a time-limit of three months from the day of the decision to apply for such legal review.

      • 26. Screening procedures

        Generally each application must be scrutinized with regard to whether formal requirements for review are fulfilled and whether the claimant is entitled to bring the case before the court. Apart from that there is no screening at the administrative courts. At the administrative courts of appeal there is in most cases a requirement for a leave to appeal. Leave to appeal shall be granted if it is of importance for the guidance of the application of law that a superior court considers the appeal, reason exists for changing or reversing the conclusion made by the administrative court, that the court without a leave to appeal is unable to assess the conclusion made by the administrative court, or there are otherwise extraordinary reasons to entertain the appeal.

        The procedure of leave to appeal may be regarded as a screening procedure. Normally two judges decide whether leave to appeal shall be granted or not. If leave to appeal is granted, the case is decided by three judges. Also applications for review by the Supreme Administrative Court are mostly subjected to a leave to appeal procedure. Leave to appeal is grated only in very few cases, primarily such where a ruling of the Supreme Administrative Court can clarify an important legal issue and be of guidance to lower courts and public authorities. The Supreme Administrative Court can also grant leave to appeal when there are extraordinary reasons to consider the appeal.

        In the Supreme Administrative Court one or three justices decide the question whether leave to appeal shall be granted or not. When a case has been granted leave to appeal, the final examination normally is entrusted to a panel of five Justices.

      • 27. Form of application

        The application must be in writing. It shall indicate the decision appealed against, the change requested and the reason for the request. If leave to appeal is required it shall also indicate the reasons why leave to appeal ought to be granted. The applicant is free to choose the format.

      • 28. Possibility of bringing proceedings via information technologies

        An appeal against a decision shall be made in writing, but there is no longer a requirement of a personal signature.

        Regarding the use of modern technology during hearings the possibilities for the courts to have hearings with parties or witnesses by means of video have increased during the last years. When deciding if such a hearing should be held, the court must consider the parties’ cost for their physical appearance and if someone experiences an obvious fear if he or she is forced to physical appearance before the court.

      • 29. Court fees

        There is no charge for lodging an application or an appeal to an administrative court.

      • 30. Compulsory representation

        There is no requirement to engage a solicitor or other legal counsel. In the great majority of cases before the administrative courts the applicants act on their own. The administrative courts are obliged to assume responsibility for the investigation of each case and to point out to individual applicants what might be missing. However, in some types of cases the parties are entitled to a public counsel. This category includes cases involving inter alia the taking into care of children or adult drug-abusers and psychiatric care. In other cases the court may, if it is needed, grant the applicant legal aid in the form of a lawyer against a limited charge.

      • 31. Legal aid

        Applications for legal aid are made directly to the Legal Aid Authority unless the case has already gone to court. In that case it is the court that decides on the legal aid. Not everyone is entitled to legal aid. Legal aid applies first and foremost to private individuals. If the person’s income is too high (more than SEK 260.000 per year) he is not entitled to legal aid from the State. If the person has legal protection cover through insurance, he cannot be granted legal aid. Another requirement that has to be fulfilled in order to obtain legal aid is that there is a need for legal assistance and that it is reasonable that the State pays the costs in the dispute. Because of this, the possibility being granted legal aid in cases handled by an administrative court is rather small.

        If the court has decided to complement the documents of the case, e.g. with a medical certificate, that is free of charge for the parties.

      • 32. Fine for abusive or unjustified applications

        There is no fine for abusive or unjustified applications.

    • B. MAIN TRIAL

    • C. JUDGMENT

    • D. EFFECTS AND EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT

      • 51. Authority of the judgment. Res judicata, stare decisis

        It follows from the nature of the administrative procedure that most decisions are taken with regard to the present situation and therefore are relevant only for the future. Thus, res judicata is not common, but may appear e.g. in cases concerning taxes or a social security benefits for a given period in the past. There is no delimitation as to the possibility to apply for e.g. a licence of some kind over and over again.

        On principle, a judicial decision produces effects only for the parties.

        Previous decisions in similar cases are not binding. The court is free to make a different judgment. Not even the precedents of the Supreme Administrative Court are formally binding, but in practice they are followed.

      • 52. Powers of the court in limiting the effects of judgment in time

        It depends on whether that has been provided for in the relevant legislation. Normally courts would not make such an arrangement.

      • 53. Right to the execution of judgment

        It follows from the nature of the decisions of the general administrative courts that execution in the formal sense normally is not required. Administrative authorities are supposed to respect and follow the court’s decision.

        However, certain problems have been observed where municipalities are under the obligation to provide housing or special treatment according to a court’s decision. The delay has sometimes been unacceptable. Thus, there is a sanction for municipalities who do not execute such court decisions within reasonable time. A considerable charge will have to be paid. Issues concerning this special charge shall be considered upon the application of the county administrative court by the administrative court within whose judicial district the municipality is located.

        In certain cases there may be a question of ordering an individual to do or not to do something. Then the court normally has the power to give the order under penalty of a fine.

      • 54. Recent efforts to reduce the length of court proceedings

        Continuous efforts are made to speed up the proceedings of the courts. Special attention has been given to possibilities to simplify the procedure and the use of technical means such as video. The requirement for leave to appeal has been important to speed up the procedure in the higher courts.

    • E. REMEDIES

      • 55. Sharing out of competencies between the lower courts and the supreme courts

        It is the administrative court which is supposed to examine the cases in detail. Oral hearings can be part of the procedure in the administrative courts.

        The higher courts focus to a large extent on whether the procedure in the administrative court has been satisfactory and whether its decision is convincing and in accordance with the law. However, if leave to appeal is granted the case is tried by the administrative court of appeal in every aspect which has been raised in the appeal. It often comes to a full review.

        As for the Supreme Administrative Court, the court may limit its review to certain aspects of a case and focus on the legal question which is of interest for the guidance of the lower courts and the public authorities.

      • 56. Recourse against judgments

        In principle, all decisions by an administrative court can be challenged before a court of appeal, either separately during the procedure or together with the judgment of the case. A leave to appeal is usually required. The same applies for decisions by a court of appeal, whose decisions and judgments can be challenged before the Supreme Administrative Court.

    • F.  EMERGENCY AND SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS / APPLICATIONS FOR INTERIM RELIEF

      • 57. Existence of emergency and/or summary proceedings

        There is a general provision in the Administrative Court Procedure Act which allows an administrative court to stop the execution of an administrative decision appealed against where an execution may lead to unreasonable consequences before the case is tried on the merits. It also allows the court to take other provisional decisions deemed necessary.

        Apart from that there are special provisions in some legislative acts which allow a speedy intervention before the whole case is tried on the merits (e.g. the immediate taking into care of a child in danger of abuse).

        Decisions for emergency measures of this kind may be taken by fewer judges than is required for the full review of the case (details in the above mentioned act). There is no formal obstacle against the same judge taking part in both the emergency procedure and the main hearing.

      • 58. Requests eligible for the emergency and/or summary proceedings

        According to the specific provisions on certain emergency measures (cf. question 57) it is only possible to decide the measures indicated in those provisions. It is often measures of protection. In the tax field there is possibility to postpone the payment of taxes until the case has been tried by a court.

        As for the general provision, it is usually only the suspension of the execution of the decision appealed against that is demanded. Sometimes a provisional decision that a disputable decision shall gain legal force and be put into effect without delay can also be made.

      • 59. Kinds of summary proceedings

        The provisions mentioned in questions 57 and 58 are general but will on principle only be applied in disputes between an administrative authority and a private person.

  • III – NON-JUDICIAL SETTLEMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE DISPUTES

    • 60. Role of administrative authorities in the settlement of administrative disputes

      An administrative authority has a legal obligation to change a previous decision if that decision is found to be obviously wrong, because of new facts or for other reasons. A condition is that the change is quick and simple and not detrimental to any private person. In cases where a person has appealed against the first decision and the authority then changes it in the way the applicant has demanded, there will be no case before the court.

      There is no other way for the authority itself to settle disputes on the application of the law in an individual case.

    • 61. Role of independent non-judicial bodies in the settlement of administrative disputes

      In many fields there are special supervisory bodies or authorities who can give their opinion on the local authorities’ handling of cases and application of the law, either because of complaints from private persons or on the supervisory bodies own initiative. Such opinions will usually be followed, but formally they can not change a decision taken. That can only be done by an administrative court (provided that the responsible authority itself is not willing to change its decision, cf. question 60).

    • 62. Alternative dispute resolution

      Cf. questions 60 and 61.

  • IV – ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND STATISTIC DATA