Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Jag antar det - Misslyckas tillämpningen av 21 kap. 7 § offentlighets- och sekretesslagen att leva upp till legalitetsprincipens krav?

Lindsten Henriksson, Rasmus LU (2025) LAGF03 20251
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Uppsatsen undersöker om det rättsliga stödet för sekretess enligt 21 kap. 7 § offentlighets- och sekretesslagen (OSL) uppfyller legalitetsprincipens krav.
Av 21 kap. 7 § offentlighets- och sekretesslagen (OSL) framgår det bl a. att sekretess gäller för personuppgifter, om det kan antas att uppgiften efter ett utlämnande kommer att behandlas i strid med dataskyddsförordningen (GDPR) eller dataskyddslagen. 21 kap. 7 § OSL kan dock undantas från att tillämpas om GDPR inte ska tillämpas på personuppgifterna som lämnas ut eller i den mån efterforskningsförbudet i tryckfrihetsförordningen inte får åsidosättas. De regler som aktualiseras vid tillämpningen av 21 kap. 7 § OSL öppnar upp för skönsmässiga tolkningar vilka ytterst begränsas av de... (More)
Uppsatsen undersöker om det rättsliga stödet för sekretess enligt 21 kap. 7 § offentlighets- och sekretesslagen (OSL) uppfyller legalitetsprincipens krav.
Av 21 kap. 7 § offentlighets- och sekretesslagen (OSL) framgår det bl a. att sekretess gäller för personuppgifter, om det kan antas att uppgiften efter ett utlämnande kommer att behandlas i strid med dataskyddsförordningen (GDPR) eller dataskyddslagen. 21 kap. 7 § OSL kan dock undantas från att tillämpas om GDPR inte ska tillämpas på personuppgifterna som lämnas ut eller i den mån efterforskningsförbudet i tryckfrihetsförordningen inte får åsidosättas. De regler som aktualiseras vid tillämpningen av 21 kap. 7 § OSL öppnar upp för skönsmässiga tolkningar vilka ytterst begränsas av de krav på legalitet som följer av rättsordningen. Uppsatsen undersöker därför om det rättsliga stödet för sekretess enligt 21 kap. 7 § OSL uppfyller legalitetsprin-cipens krav.
Legalitetsprincipen tar tydligare form ju större ingreppen mot enskilda är. Vid inskränkningar av rättigheter som skyddas av svensk grundlag och EU-stadgan kan den förvaltningsrättsliga legalitetsprincipen sägas innebära ett krav på lagstöd såval som krav på tydlighet, förutsebarhet och rättssäkerhet. I de fall två olika rättsordningar tillämpas parallellt som fallet är med den svenska rätten och EU-rätten tillämpas bägge rättsordningars krav på legalitet i den mån bägge rättsordningar har rätt att stifta lag på området, dvs. vid införlivande av EU-rätt genom nationell lagstiftning.
Uppsatsen går igenom det rättsliga stödet för sekretess enligt 21 kap. 7 § OSL och finner att precisering av lagrummen framgår till stor del av förarbeten och praxis. Tillämpningen så som den sett ut i praxis har haft varierat utfall mycket tack vare att de svenska lagstiftarnas vilja att försvara den svenska offentlighetsprincipen har varit svåra att förena med EU-rättens krav på skydd av personuppgifter.
Uppsatsens slutsats är att möjligheterna att leva upp till kraven på legalitet till stor del kompliceras när två rättsordningar har anspråk på samma situat-ion som sker vid nationellt genomförande av EU-rättsliga regler. Detta då EU-rätten är beroende av att nationella domstolar frångår de krav på legalitet som framgår av nationell rätt för att EU-rätten ska kunna genomföras effektivt. Samtidigt är EU-rättens egen legalitet beroende av att standarden på de nationella legalitetskraven är höga, för att EU-rätten i den mån den genomförs nationellt, ska kunna anses leva upp till dessa krav. Vidare är slutsatsen att detta i viss mån hade lösts av en tydligare gränsdragning för vad som utgör EU-rättens lagstiftande kompetens gentemot den svenska rättsordningen. Inom detta område hade man då kunnat ha en princip om EU-rättens företräde utan förbehåll och mer omfattande EU-rättslig lagstiftning med direkt effekt. Då hade kraven på legalitet kunnat förhålla sig till vad som mer liknar en gemensam rättsordning på EU-rättens område. (Less)
Abstract
The essay investigates whether the legal basis for confidentiality according to the 21st chapter 7 § of the Public Access to Information and Secrecy Act (OSL) is in fulfillment of the demands that follow the principle of legality.
According to the 21st chapter 7 § OSL, confidentiality applies to personal data if it can be assumed that, after being disclosed, the data will be pro-cessed in violation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or the Swedish Data Protection Act. The 21st chapter 7 § OSL is exempted from application if GDPR isn’t to be applied to the processing of data or to the extent the Freedom of Press Act prohibits any further inquiries regarding the purpose of handling the data. The regulations that become... (More)
The essay investigates whether the legal basis for confidentiality according to the 21st chapter 7 § of the Public Access to Information and Secrecy Act (OSL) is in fulfillment of the demands that follow the principle of legality.
According to the 21st chapter 7 § OSL, confidentiality applies to personal data if it can be assumed that, after being disclosed, the data will be pro-cessed in violation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or the Swedish Data Protection Act. The 21st chapter 7 § OSL is exempted from application if GDPR isn’t to be applied to the processing of data or to the extent the Freedom of Press Act prohibits any further inquiries regarding the purpose of handling the data. The regulations that become relevant when applying the 21st chapter 7 § OSL open up for more discretionary interpreta-tions which are ultimately limited by the demands on legality presented by the legal order. The essay investigates whether the legal basis for confidenti-ality according to the 21st chapter 7 § OSL lives up to those demands.
The principle of legality gets more defined the more impactful the interven-tions toward individuals are. When interventions are, regarding the rights that are being protected by the Swedish Constitution and the EU charter, the principle of legality regarding administrative law, poses requirements on legal basis as well as clarity, predictability and legal certainty. In cases where two different legal orders are applied parallel to each other, as in the case with Swedish law and EU-law, both legal orders legality requirements are applied simultaneously. This is to the extent both legal orders have a right to make legislation, as is the case when it comes to indirect legislation in the EU.
The essay examines the legal basis for the 21st chapter 7 § OSL and finds that the specifications of the legislation are to be found mostly in the prepar-atory works and case law. The application in practice has had varying out-comes, largely due to the Swedish legislators’ desire to uphold the principle of public access to information has been hard to reconcile with the require-ments to protect personal data that follow EU-law.
The essay's conclusion is that the possibilities to meet the requirements of legality is complicated by the fact that two legal orders both claim the same situation as is the case when national legislation are to implement EU-law. This is because EU-law is incumbent on national courts' readiness to set aside the principle of legality that follows their own national legal order, to ensure that EU-law is implemented effectively. At the same time, the legali-ty of EU-law itself depends on the high standards of national legality re-quirements, so that EU-law, to the extent that it’s to be implemented by national legislation, can be said to fulfill these requirements. Furthermore, the conclusion is that this issue could, to some extent, be resolved by a clearer definition of where the legislative competence of the EU in relation to Swedish legal order begins, and where it ends. In this more clearly de-fined area, there could then be a principle of the primacy of EU-law without exceptions and more extensive legislation with direct effect. This would allow the legality requirements to exist in relation to what would more re-semble a common legal order within the area of EU-law. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Lindsten Henriksson, Rasmus LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20251
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
EU-rätt (en. EU law), förvaltningsrätt (en. administrative law)
language
Swedish
id
9193974
date added to LUP
2026-02-10 10:51:06
date last changed
2026-02-10 10:51:06
@misc{9193974,
  abstract     = {{The essay investigates whether the legal basis for confidentiality according to the 21st chapter 7 § of the Public Access to Information and Secrecy Act (OSL) is in fulfillment of the demands that follow the principle of legality. 
According to the 21st chapter 7 § OSL, confidentiality applies to personal data if it can be assumed that, after being disclosed, the data will be pro-cessed in violation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or the Swedish Data Protection Act. The 21st chapter 7 § OSL is exempted from application if GDPR isn’t to be applied to the processing of data or to the extent the Freedom of Press Act prohibits any further inquiries regarding the purpose of handling the data. The regulations that become relevant when applying the 21st chapter 7 § OSL open up for more discretionary interpreta-tions which are ultimately limited by the demands on legality presented by the legal order. The essay investigates whether the legal basis for confidenti-ality according to the 21st chapter 7 § OSL lives up to those demands. 
The principle of legality gets more defined the more impactful the interven-tions toward individuals are. When interventions are, regarding the rights that are being protected by the Swedish Constitution and the EU charter, the principle of legality regarding administrative law, poses requirements on legal basis as well as clarity, predictability and legal certainty. In cases where two different legal orders are applied parallel to each other, as in the case with Swedish law and EU-law, both legal orders legality requirements are applied simultaneously. This is to the extent both legal orders have a right to make legislation, as is the case when it comes to indirect legislation in the EU. 
The essay examines the legal basis for the 21st chapter 7 § OSL and finds that the specifications of the legislation are to be found mostly in the prepar-atory works and case law. The application in practice has had varying out-comes, largely due to the Swedish legislators’ desire to uphold the principle of public access to information has been hard to reconcile with the require-ments to protect personal data that follow EU-law.
The essay's conclusion is that the possibilities to meet the requirements of legality is complicated by the fact that two legal orders both claim the same situation as is the case when national legislation are to implement EU-law. This is because EU-law is incumbent on national courts' readiness to set aside the principle of legality that follows their own national legal order, to ensure that EU-law is implemented effectively. At the same time, the legali-ty of EU-law itself depends on the high standards of national legality re-quirements, so that EU-law, to the extent that it’s to be implemented by national legislation, can be said to fulfill these requirements. Furthermore, the conclusion is that this issue could, to some extent, be resolved by a clearer definition of where the legislative competence of the EU in relation to Swedish legal order begins, and where it ends. In this more clearly de-fined area, there could then be a principle of the primacy of EU-law without exceptions and more extensive legislation with direct effect. This would allow the legality requirements to exist in relation to what would more re-semble a common legal order within the area of EU-law.}},
  author       = {{Lindsten Henriksson, Rasmus}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Jag antar det - Misslyckas tillämpningen av 21 kap. 7 § offentlighets- och sekretesslagen att leva upp till legalitetsprincipens krav?}},
  year         = {{2025}},
}