Återkallelse vid fusk och lögner - Om negativ rättskraft i migrationsrätt och allmän förvaltningsrätt
(2020) LAGF03 20202Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Ett gynnande svenskt förvaltningsbeslut får som huvudregel inte ändras. Detta brukar kallas att beslutet vinner negativ rättskraft, eller att det är orubbligt. Till denna huvudregel finns ett antal undantag. Ett av undantagen är om den enskilde vilselett myndigheten och därmed fått ett gynnande beslut som denne inte hade rätt till.
Uppsatsen behandlar i vilka situationer svenska myndigheter får återkalla gynnande beslut när en enskild har vilselett myndigheterna. Dels behandlas vad som gäller inom den allmänna förvaltningsrätten som regleras av förvaltningslagen (2017:900), dels reglerna om återkallande av uppehållstillstånd enligt utlänningslagen (2005:716). Uppsatsens syfte är att beskriva, jämföra och till viss del problematisera... (More) - Ett gynnande svenskt förvaltningsbeslut får som huvudregel inte ändras. Detta brukar kallas att beslutet vinner negativ rättskraft, eller att det är orubbligt. Till denna huvudregel finns ett antal undantag. Ett av undantagen är om den enskilde vilselett myndigheten och därmed fått ett gynnande beslut som denne inte hade rätt till.
Uppsatsen behandlar i vilka situationer svenska myndigheter får återkalla gynnande beslut när en enskild har vilselett myndigheterna. Dels behandlas vad som gäller inom den allmänna förvaltningsrätten som regleras av förvaltningslagen (2017:900), dels reglerna om återkallande av uppehållstillstånd enligt utlänningslagen (2005:716). Uppsatsens syfte är att beskriva, jämföra och till viss del problematisera reglerna i de båda rättsområdena. För att göra detta används en rättsdogmatisk metod.
Uppsatsen visar att det finns stora skillnader mellan regleringarna om negativ rättskraft inom den allmänna förvaltningsrätten och migrationsrätten. För att återkalla ett uppehållstillstånd för en person som haft sådant tillstånd i mer än fyra år krävs synnerliga skäl. I praxis har detta kommit att tolkas som att personen ska ha en svag anknytning till Sverige. Några motsvarande bestämmelser finns inte inom den allmänna förvaltningsrätten.
Utredningen SOU 2019:50 behandlar frågan vilka beslut som ska kunna återkallas om en person fuskat på högskoleprovet och blivit antagen till en högre utbildning. Utredningen föreslår bland annat att det ska införas ett förbud mot att återkalla antagningsbesked efter att examensbevis utfärdats. Utredningen används för att visa de svårigheter som finns med att reglera orubbligheten av ett gynnande beslut i svensk förvaltningsrätt.
Slutsatsen är att specialregleringen i utlänningslagen och den föreslagna regleringen i SOU 2019:50 är mer gynnsam för enskilda. Detta kritiseras i uppsatsens avslutande del. I den delen belyses även en situation då regleringen i utlänningslagen riskerar att leda till olämpliga tillämpningsresultat. (Less) - Abstract
- In Swedish administrative law a favourable decision is, as a general principle, immoveable (res judicata). There are a few exceptions to this general principle, one of which is when an induvial have mislead a government authority and as a result have been granted a favourable decision the individual was not entitled to.
This essay deals with the question of in which situations Swedish authorities can revoke a favourable decision that has been granted to an individual based on misleading information. The essay first examines the rules on this subject in the Administrative Procedure Act (2017:900) and thereafter the corresponding rules relating to revoking a residence permit found in the Aliens Act (2005:716). The essay aims to describe,... (More) - In Swedish administrative law a favourable decision is, as a general principle, immoveable (res judicata). There are a few exceptions to this general principle, one of which is when an induvial have mislead a government authority and as a result have been granted a favourable decision the individual was not entitled to.
This essay deals with the question of in which situations Swedish authorities can revoke a favourable decision that has been granted to an individual based on misleading information. The essay first examines the rules on this subject in the Administrative Procedure Act (2017:900) and thereafter the corresponding rules relating to revoking a residence permit found in the Aliens Act (2005:716). The essay aims to describe, compare and to some extent problematize the rules in these two legal areas. To do so, I will be using a legal dogmatic method (also called a traditional jurisprudential method).
The essay shows that there are big discrepancies between the view of res judicata in the general administrative law (as regulated in the Administrative Procedure Act) and in migration law (as regulated in the Aliens Act). There is a requirement of exceptional circumstances to revoke a residence permit for a person who has had said permit for more than four years. In court practice, this has been interpreted as meaning that the person must have weak ties to Sweden with regards to, for example, family. There are no corresponding rules of this nature in the Administrative Procedure Act.
The Swedish governmental official report SOU 2019:50 deals with the issue of which favourable decisions a Swedish government authority should have the right to revoke in cases where an individual have been admitted to higher education by presenting misleading information. The report suggests that a favourable decision to be admitted into a university program should not be revocable after the person has graduated and received his or her diploma. The report is used to show the difficulties relating to regulating the question of res judicata in Swedish administrative law.
The essay concludes that the rules on res judicata in the Swedish Aliens Act, and the rules on res judicata proposed in SOU 2019:50, are more beneficial to the individual than the corresponding rules in the Administrative Procedure Act. This is criticized in the essays final section. In that same section I present a situation in which I believe that the rules on res judicata in the Swedish Aliens Act leads to unwanted application of the law. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9034169
- author
- Pilhage, Erik LU
- supervisor
-
- Per Nilsén LU
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20202
- year
- 2020
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Förvaltningsrätt, administrative law, migrationsrätt, migration law, orubblighetsprincipen, res judicata, negativ rättskraft
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9034169
- date added to LUP
- 2021-02-09 11:39:41
- date last changed
- 2021-02-09 11:39:41
@misc{9034169,
abstract = {{In Swedish administrative law a favourable decision is, as a general principle, immoveable (res judicata). There are a few exceptions to this general principle, one of which is when an induvial have mislead a government authority and as a result have been granted a favourable decision the individual was not entitled to.
This essay deals with the question of in which situations Swedish authorities can revoke a favourable decision that has been granted to an individual based on misleading information. The essay first examines the rules on this subject in the Administrative Procedure Act (2017:900) and thereafter the corresponding rules relating to revoking a residence permit found in the Aliens Act (2005:716). The essay aims to describe, compare and to some extent problematize the rules in these two legal areas. To do so, I will be using a legal dogmatic method (also called a traditional jurisprudential method).
The essay shows that there are big discrepancies between the view of res judicata in the general administrative law (as regulated in the Administrative Procedure Act) and in migration law (as regulated in the Aliens Act). There is a requirement of exceptional circumstances to revoke a residence permit for a person who has had said permit for more than four years. In court practice, this has been interpreted as meaning that the person must have weak ties to Sweden with regards to, for example, family. There are no corresponding rules of this nature in the Administrative Procedure Act.
The Swedish governmental official report SOU 2019:50 deals with the issue of which favourable decisions a Swedish government authority should have the right to revoke in cases where an individual have been admitted to higher education by presenting misleading information. The report suggests that a favourable decision to be admitted into a university program should not be revocable after the person has graduated and received his or her diploma. The report is used to show the difficulties relating to regulating the question of res judicata in Swedish administrative law.
The essay concludes that the rules on res judicata in the Swedish Aliens Act, and the rules on res judicata proposed in SOU 2019:50, are more beneficial to the individual than the corresponding rules in the Administrative Procedure Act. This is criticized in the essays final section. In that same section I present a situation in which I believe that the rules on res judicata in the Swedish Aliens Act leads to unwanted application of the law.}},
author = {{Pilhage, Erik}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Återkallelse vid fusk och lögner - Om negativ rättskraft i migrationsrätt och allmän förvaltningsrätt}},
year = {{2020}},
}