Abstrakt normprövningsrätt – Normprövning i Sverige och i förhållande till unionsrättens krav på effektivt domstolsskydd
(2022) LAGF03 20222Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract
- The Swedish system of judicial review, like most constitutional democracies, is based on an equilibrium between various interests. One the one hand, in democracies, the legislature are required to make decisions compatible with formal requirements in the constitution. On the other hand, majority rule can pose a threat against fundamental freedoms and rights. Individuals who might not agree with a certain political developement, even though formal legislative requirements are upheld, might have their freedom undermined. This thesis attempts to analyse the system of judicial review in Sweden and whether abstract judicial review would be necessary to comply with European Union law’s requirement with regards to effective judicial protection.... (More)
- The Swedish system of judicial review, like most constitutional democracies, is based on an equilibrium between various interests. One the one hand, in democracies, the legislature are required to make decisions compatible with formal requirements in the constitution. On the other hand, majority rule can pose a threat against fundamental freedoms and rights. Individuals who might not agree with a certain political developement, even though formal legislative requirements are upheld, might have their freedom undermined. This thesis attempts to analyse the system of judicial review in Sweden and whether abstract judicial review would be necessary to comply with European Union law’s requirement with regards to effective judicial protection. The objective of this thesis is fulfilled through answering the question of what interests can be identified behind the Swedish system of judicial review, and whether the lack of abstract judicial review is compatible with effective judicial protection as guaranteed by Union law.
The Swedish system of judicial review was codified in the Swedish constitution in the year 1980. However, Swedish judicial reviw extends further back and was established and developed through case law starting at the beginning of the 20th century. Since the most recent constitutional reform in 2010, the so called ”uppenbarhetsrekvisitet” or clear un-constitutionality rule, was scrapped. This constituted a significant move away from a formal conception of democracy, based on the structure of the legislative process, to a somewhat more substantive concept of democracy. A substantive concept with potential for an effective substantive due process review. Something that never has been applied in Sweden is abstract review. In contrast to concrete judicial review, which presupposes a concrete legal relationship in order for a norm to be tried against a constitutional constraint, abstract judicial review can be performed in the abstract. That is, without anyone having to violate a norm in order to have its constitutionality tested. Furthermore, within European Union law, there are requirements for effective judicial protection. This implies that national procedural legislation must not undermine individuals’ conditions to have rights that follow from Union law upheld. An interesting question that can be asked with regards to
the legal case NJA 2005 s. 764 & C-432/05 Unibet is whether Union law could, under certain circumstances, actually require some kind of abstract judicial review with regards to Union law. (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- Den svenska normprövningsrätten bygger likt de flesta konstitutionella demokratier på en jämvikt mellan olika intressen. Lagstiftaren har i demokratier å ena sidan en skyldighet att fattat beslut som är förenliga med de formella krav som framgår av konstitutionen. Å andra sidan riskerar majoritetsstyre att kränka vissa fundamentala fri- och rättigheter för de minoriteter som inte står bakom en viss politisk utveckling, även om de formella kraven för beslutsfattandet är uppfyllda. Framställningen syfte går ut på att analysera normprövningssystemet i Sverige samt abstrakt normprövning i förhållande till unionsrättens krav på effektivt domstolsskydd. För att uppfylla framställningens syfte besvaras frågan om vilka intresseavvägningar som kan... (More)
- Den svenska normprövningsrätten bygger likt de flesta konstitutionella demokratier på en jämvikt mellan olika intressen. Lagstiftaren har i demokratier å ena sidan en skyldighet att fattat beslut som är förenliga med de formella krav som framgår av konstitutionen. Å andra sidan riskerar majoritetsstyre att kränka vissa fundamentala fri- och rättigheter för de minoriteter som inte står bakom en viss politisk utveckling, även om de formella kraven för beslutsfattandet är uppfyllda. Framställningen syfte går ut på att analysera normprövningssystemet i Sverige samt abstrakt normprövning i förhållande till unionsrättens krav på effektivt domstolsskydd. För att uppfylla framställningens syfte besvaras frågan om vilka intresseavvägningar som kan skönjas bakom det svenska normprövningssystemet och dess avsaknad av abstrakt normprövning, samt huruvida avsaknaden av abstrakt normprövning är förenlig med unionsrättens krav på effektivt domstolsskydd.
Normprövningsrätten är i Sverige sedan år 1980 kodifierad i regeringsformen. Den svenska normprövningsrätten sträcker sig emellertid längre tillbaka än så och kom att fastställas och utvecklas genom rättspraxis från och med 1900-talets inledande decennium. I samband med den senaste grundlagsreformen år 2010 togs det så kallade uppenbarhetsrekvisit bort. Sverige har därmed i en inte obetydlig utsträckning rört sig från en formell demokratiuppfattning baserat på normgivningsprocessens struktur till ett något mer materiellt demokratibegrepp. Ett demokratibegrepp med potential för en starkare materiell normprövning. Något som däremot aldrig har förekommit i svensk rätt är så kallad abstrakt normprövning. Till skillnad från konkret normprövning som förutsätter ett konkretiserat rättsförhållande för att en
norm ska kunna prövas mot högre rätt kan abstrakt normprövning ske just i en abstrakt bemärkelse. Det vill säga utan att någon ska behöva bryta mot en norm för att dess konstitutionella giltighet ska kunna prövas. Vidare finns inom unionsrätten krav på effektivt domstolsskydd vilket ska realiseras utan alltför betungande nationella processrättsliga krav för att enskildas rättigheter enligt unionsrätten ska kunna upprätthållas. En relevant fråga som aktualiserats i rättsfallet NJA 2005 s. 764 & C-432/05 Unibet är om unionsrätten under vissa omständigheter faktiskt förutsätter viss abstrakt normprövning vad det beträffar unionsrättens genomslag. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9105344
- author
- Vålvik, Viktor LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20222
- year
- 2022
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Rättsvetenskap, konstitutionell rätt, statsrätt, normprövning, företrädesprincipen
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9105344
- date added to LUP
- 2023-02-03 16:41:51
- date last changed
- 2023-02-03 16:41:51
@misc{9105344,
abstract = {{The Swedish system of judicial review, like most constitutional democracies, is based on an equilibrium between various interests. One the one hand, in democracies, the legislature are required to make decisions compatible with formal requirements in the constitution. On the other hand, majority rule can pose a threat against fundamental freedoms and rights. Individuals who might not agree with a certain political developement, even though formal legislative requirements are upheld, might have their freedom undermined. This thesis attempts to analyse the system of judicial review in Sweden and whether abstract judicial review would be necessary to comply with European Union law’s requirement with regards to effective judicial protection. The objective of this thesis is fulfilled through answering the question of what interests can be identified behind the Swedish system of judicial review, and whether the lack of abstract judicial review is compatible with effective judicial protection as guaranteed by Union law.
The Swedish system of judicial review was codified in the Swedish constitution in the year 1980. However, Swedish judicial reviw extends further back and was established and developed through case law starting at the beginning of the 20th century. Since the most recent constitutional reform in 2010, the so called ”uppenbarhetsrekvisitet” or clear un-constitutionality rule, was scrapped. This constituted a significant move away from a formal conception of democracy, based on the structure of the legislative process, to a somewhat more substantive concept of democracy. A substantive concept with potential for an effective substantive due process review. Something that never has been applied in Sweden is abstract review. In contrast to concrete judicial review, which presupposes a concrete legal relationship in order for a norm to be tried against a constitutional constraint, abstract judicial review can be performed in the abstract. That is, without anyone having to violate a norm in order to have its constitutionality tested. Furthermore, within European Union law, there are requirements for effective judicial protection. This implies that national procedural legislation must not undermine individuals’ conditions to have rights that follow from Union law upheld. An interesting question that can be asked with regards to
the legal case NJA 2005 s. 764 & C-432/05 Unibet is whether Union law could, under certain circumstances, actually require some kind of abstract judicial review with regards to Union law.}},
author = {{Vålvik, Viktor}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Abstrakt normprövningsrätt – Normprövning i Sverige och i förhållande till unionsrättens krav på effektivt domstolsskydd}},
year = {{2022}},
}