De allmänna förvaltningsdomstolarna - En rättshistorisk studie av deras tillkomst och utvecklingen av treinstanssystemet
(2024) JURM02 20242Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Domstolarna i det svenska rättsväsendet delas primärt upp i två grupper: de allmänna domstolarna och de allmänna förvaltningsdomstolarna. Den senare gruppen av domstolar ansvarar för förvaltningsrättskipningen och utgörs av förvaltningsrätterna (som också utgör första instans enligt överprövningsförfarandet), kammarrätterna (andra instans) och Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen, HFD (sista instans). Domstolssystemet för förvaltningsrättskipningen har dock inte alltid sett ut som det gör idag.
Den här framställningen syftar till att göra en rättshistorisk undersökning av bakgrunden till inrättandet av de allmänna förvaltningsdomstolarna. En fördjupning görs av de faktorer som legat till grund för inrättandet av respektive förvaltningsdomstol... (More) - Domstolarna i det svenska rättsväsendet delas primärt upp i två grupper: de allmänna domstolarna och de allmänna förvaltningsdomstolarna. Den senare gruppen av domstolar ansvarar för förvaltningsrättskipningen och utgörs av förvaltningsrätterna (som också utgör första instans enligt överprövningsförfarandet), kammarrätterna (andra instans) och Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen, HFD (sista instans). Domstolssystemet för förvaltningsrättskipningen har dock inte alltid sett ut som det gör idag.
Den här framställningen syftar till att göra en rättshistorisk undersökning av bakgrunden till inrättandet av de allmänna förvaltningsdomstolarna. En fördjupning görs av de faktorer som legat till grund för inrättandet av respektive förvaltningsdomstol och de faktorer som bidragit till utvecklingen av treinstanssystemet. Framställningen ansluter sig till Kaarlo Tuoris rättsliga teori om att rätten är indelad i tre olika skikt. För att angripa frågeställningarna har utgångspunkten varit Jørn Øyrehagen Sundes beskrivning av den rättshistoriska metoden Legal Culture Model. Med stöd av metodens teoretiska angreppssätt har frågor om varför rätten ser ut som den gör idag kunnat besvaras.
Kammarrätten är den första allmänna förvaltningsdomstolen som inrättades. Den huvudsakliga faktorn bakom inrättandet var de ökade räkenskapsgranskningarna till följd av bland annat reformationen och krigen i Europa på 1600-talet. Till en början hanterade kammarrådet granskningarna och senare togs uppgiften över av kammarrevisionskontoret. Kammarrevisionen inrättades som en ny avdelning inom kammarrådet för att avlasta arbetsbördan, men fick själv en hög arbetsbelastning. Kammarrevisionen bröts därför ut och blev till en kammarrätt 1695.
Den främsta anledningen till att HFD inrättades 1909 var den tunga arbetsbördan det innebar för regeringen att handlägga administrativa besvärsmål. Regeringens handläggning av besvärsmålen ansågs inte heller leva upp till kraven på rättssäkerhet eller maktdelningsläran. En ny administrativ högsta domstol, fristående från regeringen, med ansvar för de administrativa besvärsmålen ansågs vara mer ändamålsenlig. På så sätt blev HFD den andra allmänna förvaltningsdomstolen som inrättades.
Föregångaren till förvaltningsrätten var länsdomstolarna. Innan länsrättsreformerna var länsdomstolarna en del av länsstyrelsen, vilket medförde att förvaltande och rättskipande funktioner fick ett nära samband. Ordningen ansågs inte uppfylla de krav allmänheten ställde på rättssäkerhet och äventyrade även allmänhetens förtroende för domstolarna. Självständiga länsdomstolar ansågs vara mer ändamålsenligt och därför inrättades förvaltningsrätterna 1979.
Även treinstanssystemets utveckling beror på hög arbetsbelastning. Efter HFD:s inrättande blev målbalanserna allt högre, vilket ställde krav på nya reformer. Lösningen blev att införa prövningstillstånd i HFD och att omvandla kammarrätten till en mellaninstans med ansvar för större delen av förvaltningsrättskipningen. För utvecklingen av instansordningen mellan förvaltningsrätten och kammarrätten var de huvudsakliga anledningarna förvaltningsrättens höga arbetsbelastning, och den framvuxna tanken om att den första prövningen i rättskipningen skulle ske i lägsta domstolsinstans. (Less) - Abstract
- The courts in the Swedish legal system are primarily constituted by two groups: the General Courts and the Administrative Courts. The latter group is constituted by the Administrative Court (which handles cases as the first instance), the Administrative Court of Appeal (second instance) and the Supreme Administrative Court (last instance). The Administrative Courts are responsible for the administrative justice. However, the court system has not always been structured as it is today.
This presentation aims to conduct a legal historical study of the establishment of the Administrative Courts. An analysis will examine the factors which contributed to the establishment of each court and the factors which contributed to the development of... (More) - The courts in the Swedish legal system are primarily constituted by two groups: the General Courts and the Administrative Courts. The latter group is constituted by the Administrative Court (which handles cases as the first instance), the Administrative Court of Appeal (second instance) and the Supreme Administrative Court (last instance). The Administrative Courts are responsible for the administrative justice. However, the court system has not always been structured as it is today.
This presentation aims to conduct a legal historical study of the establishment of the Administrative Courts. An analysis will examine the factors which contributed to the establishment of each court and the factors which contributed to the development of the court hierarchy. The presentation applies Kaarlo Tuori’s theory, which divides the law into three layers. To answer the formulated questions, the starting point is Jørn Øyrehagen Sunde’s description of the legal historical method, the Legal Culture Model. By applying the method, it’s possible to answer questions about why the law appears as it does today.
The Administrative Court of Appeal was the first Administrative Court to be established. The main reason for its establishment was the increased audits, due to the Reformation and the European wars of the 17th century. Initially, audits were handled by the Chamber Council, but as the workload increased, a new department, the Chamber of Auditors, was established to manage the responsibility. The new department also became heavily burdened and was separated from the Chamber Council in 1695 to form an independent court.
One of the main factors for the establishment of the Supreme Administrative Court in 1909 was the heavy workload of the government caused by handling administrative appeal cases. The government’s handling of the cases was deemed inadequate both in terms of the rule of law and the principle of the separation of state powers. A new administrative supreme court, independent from the government and responsible for administrative appeal cases, was deemed more appropriate. Therefore, the Supreme Administrative Court became the second Administrative Court to be established.
The predecessors to the Administrative Courts were the County Courts which, before the County Court reforms, were part of the County Administrative Board. The placement of the County Courts within the County Administrative Board led to a close connection between administrative and judicial functions. This arrangement was considered insufficient to meet the public’s demands for the rule of law and jeopardized the public’s trust in the courts. Independent County Courts were deemed more appropriate, and thus, the Administrative Courts were established in 1979.
Factors contributing to the development of the court hierarchy are also mainly rooted in high workloads. After the establishment of the Supreme Administrative Court, the backlogs grew significantly, necessitating new reforms. The solution was to introduce leave to appeal in the Supreme Administrative Court and to transform the Administrative Court of Appeal into an intermediate authority, responsible for most of the administrative adjudication. The main reasons for the development of the hierarchy for the Administrative Court and the Administrative Court of Appeal were also the high workload of the Administrative Court, but also the emerging principle that the initial adjudication should take place in the lowest court instance. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9179680
- author
- Fallahy, Ronja LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- The Administrative Courts - A Legal Historical Study of Their Establishment and the Development of the Court Hierarchy
- course
- JURM02 20242
- year
- 2024
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- Rättshistoria, Förvaltningsrätt, Allmänna förvaltningsdomstolar, Förvaltningsrätten, Kammarrätten, HFD, Instansordning
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9179680
- date added to LUP
- 2025-01-14 15:54:54
- date last changed
- 2025-01-14 15:54:54
@misc{9179680,
abstract = {{The courts in the Swedish legal system are primarily constituted by two groups: the General Courts and the Administrative Courts. The latter group is constituted by the Administrative Court (which handles cases as the first instance), the Administrative Court of Appeal (second instance) and the Supreme Administrative Court (last instance). The Administrative Courts are responsible for the administrative justice. However, the court system has not always been structured as it is today.
This presentation aims to conduct a legal historical study of the establishment of the Administrative Courts. An analysis will examine the factors which contributed to the establishment of each court and the factors which contributed to the development of the court hierarchy. The presentation applies Kaarlo Tuori’s theory, which divides the law into three layers. To answer the formulated questions, the starting point is Jørn Øyrehagen Sunde’s description of the legal historical method, the Legal Culture Model. By applying the method, it’s possible to answer questions about why the law appears as it does today.
The Administrative Court of Appeal was the first Administrative Court to be established. The main reason for its establishment was the increased audits, due to the Reformation and the European wars of the 17th century. Initially, audits were handled by the Chamber Council, but as the workload increased, a new department, the Chamber of Auditors, was established to manage the responsibility. The new department also became heavily burdened and was separated from the Chamber Council in 1695 to form an independent court.
One of the main factors for the establishment of the Supreme Administrative Court in 1909 was the heavy workload of the government caused by handling administrative appeal cases. The government’s handling of the cases was deemed inadequate both in terms of the rule of law and the principle of the separation of state powers. A new administrative supreme court, independent from the government and responsible for administrative appeal cases, was deemed more appropriate. Therefore, the Supreme Administrative Court became the second Administrative Court to be established.
The predecessors to the Administrative Courts were the County Courts which, before the County Court reforms, were part of the County Administrative Board. The placement of the County Courts within the County Administrative Board led to a close connection between administrative and judicial functions. This arrangement was considered insufficient to meet the public’s demands for the rule of law and jeopardized the public’s trust in the courts. Independent County Courts were deemed more appropriate, and thus, the Administrative Courts were established in 1979.
Factors contributing to the development of the court hierarchy are also mainly rooted in high workloads. After the establishment of the Supreme Administrative Court, the backlogs grew significantly, necessitating new reforms. The solution was to introduce leave to appeal in the Supreme Administrative Court and to transform the Administrative Court of Appeal into an intermediate authority, responsible for most of the administrative adjudication. The main reasons for the development of the hierarchy for the Administrative Court and the Administrative Court of Appeal were also the high workload of the Administrative Court, but also the emerging principle that the initial adjudication should take place in the lowest court instance.}},
author = {{Fallahy, Ronja}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{De allmänna förvaltningsdomstolarna - En rättshistorisk studie av deras tillkomst och utvecklingen av treinstanssystemet}},
year = {{2024}},
}