Judgment Reviews Law at Sweden
In Sweden, the concept of "judgment review" is primarily known as judicial review (lagprövningsrätt) and administrative appeal. These two mechanisms are distinct but work together to provide oversight of public power. Sweden has a unique legal system with a parallel court structure for administrative and general cases, which significantly shapes how these reviews are conducted.
Administrative Appeal
The most common way for an individual to challenge a decision by a public authority is through an administrative appeal. This process is governed by the Administrative Procedure Act and the Administrative Court Procedure Act.
Broad Scope: Unlike in some other countries where judicial review is limited to the process, Swedish administrative courts have the power to review the merits of a decision, not just its legality. This means the court can not only quash a decision but also change its content and substitute its own decision for that of the administrative authority.
Three-Tiered System: The administrative court system is a three-tiered structure:
Administrative Courts (Förvaltningsrätt): These are the courts of first instance for most administrative appeals.
Administrative Courts of Appeal (Kammarrätt): These courts hear appeals from the Administrative Courts.
Supreme Administrative Court (Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen): This is the final court of appeal for administrative cases.
Municipal Appeals: A distinct type of appeal, known as a "municipal appeal," allows any member of a municipality to challenge the legality of a decision made by local or regional authorities. This type of review is limited to legality and can only result in the decision being quashed.
Judicial Review (Lagprövningsrätt)
Judicial review in Sweden refers to the constitutional power of courts and other public bodies to refuse to apply a law or regulation that is in conflict with a superior statute, particularly the Constitution.
Constitutional Basis: This power is enshrined in the Instrument of Government, one of Sweden's four fundamental laws. The law states that if a court or public body finds a provision to be in conflict with a fundamental law, it should not be applied. The same applies if the correct legal procedure was not followed in a significant way when the provision was made.
Limited Power: Historically, judicial review in Sweden has been a weaker tool than in countries like the United States. This is partly due to a strong tradition of parliamentary sovereignty. However, the influence of EU law and the European Convention on Human Rights has strengthened the courts' role in this area.
The Council on Legislation (Lagrådet): Before the government presents a bill to Parliament, it often seeks a legal opinion from the Council on Legislation. This council, composed of justices from the two supreme courts, reviews draft legislation to ensure it complies with the Constitution and other superior laws. While the government is not legally bound by the council's opinion, the opinion is made public and can significantly influence the legislative process.
"Ex Post" Review: Courts can perform a judicial review "ex post" after a law has been passed. If a court finds a law to be in conflict with the Constitution, it can choose not to apply it in a specific case. This is a form of decentralized constitutional review, as a law is not declared unconstitutional in an abstract sense but rather in a specific application.
The Role of the Supreme Administrative Court
The Supreme Administrative Court in Sweden has a specific and important role in judicial review of certain government decisions. Under the Act on Judicial Review of Certain Government Decisions, the court can examine whether decisions by the government that affect an individual's civil rights and obligations are in conflict with a legal rule. This is a specific mechanism that provides a check on the executive branch, especially in areas where there is no ordinary administrative appeal.
RELATED Blog
0 comments