Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Frihet i lydnaden: Om utrymmet och gränserna för regeringens styrning av myndigheterna

Petersson, Benjamin LU (2025) JURM02 20251
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
I 12 kap. 1 § RF stadgas att de statliga förvaltningsmyndigheterna som utgångspunkt lyder under regeringen. Regeringens styrning begränsas samtidigt av att regeringen enligt 12 kap. 2 § RF inte får bestämma hur en förvaltningsmyndighet i ett särskilt fall ska besluta i ett ärende som rör myndighetsutövning mot en enskild eller mot en kommun eller som rör tillämpningen av lag. Hur stort utrymme för styrning bestämmelserna ger har diskuterats genom åren. Syftet med denna uppsats är att bidra till att bringa klarhet i regleringens innebörd. Eftersom det handlar om att utreda vad som är gällande rätt används en rättsdogmatisk metod.

Av bestämmelsen i 12 kap. 1 § RF följer att myndigheterna är skyldiga att följa såväl generella direktiv som... (More)
I 12 kap. 1 § RF stadgas att de statliga förvaltningsmyndigheterna som utgångspunkt lyder under regeringen. Regeringens styrning begränsas samtidigt av att regeringen enligt 12 kap. 2 § RF inte får bestämma hur en förvaltningsmyndighet i ett särskilt fall ska besluta i ett ärende som rör myndighetsutövning mot en enskild eller mot en kommun eller som rör tillämpningen av lag. Hur stort utrymme för styrning bestämmelserna ger har diskuterats genom åren. Syftet med denna uppsats är att bidra till att bringa klarhet i regleringens innebörd. Eftersom det handlar om att utreda vad som är gällande rätt används en rättsdogmatisk metod.

Av bestämmelsen i 12 kap. 1 § RF följer att myndigheterna är skyldiga att följa såväl generella direktiv som direktiv för särskilda fall från regeringen. Om detta råder stor enighet. Det har dock i ett fall ifrågasatts på språklig grund om en lydnadsplikt verkligen kan anses följa av bestämmelsen. De befintliga styrinstrumenten – instruktioner, regleringsbrev och regeringsuppdrag – har alla samband med den aktuella bestämmelsen, men inte av samma slag.

Bestämmelsen om förvaltningens självständighet i 12 kap. 2 § RF blir endast tillämplig om samtliga kumulativa rekvisit och något av de alternativa om myndighetsutövning respektive lagtillämpning är uppfyllda. Vidare finns skäl för att en restriktiv syn på omfattningen av bestämmelsen ger uttryck för gällande rätt. Ett undantag är att ”bestämma” ska ges en vidsträckt innebörd. Regeringen får alltid ge generella direktiv. Detta kan möjliggöra andra styrinstrument än de som används idag där rättsliga ställningstaganden utgör ett förslag. Direktiv i särskilda fall är tillåtna vad gäller faktiskt handlande, såsom producerande verksamhet, och ärenden som inte gäller myndighetsutövning och lagtillämpning, exempelvis civilrättsliga angelägenheter. Gränsdragningarna är emellertid inte helt tydliga. Ett exempel i detta avseende är polisens operativa verksamhet.

Det har förts fram att regeringen skulle kunna beordra polisen att storma en byggnad med hänvisning till att det är ett faktiskt handlande. Denna gränsdragning mot ärendehandläggning har kritiserats av vissa. Att exemplet förekommit hos bland annat KU samt den restriktiva synen på ärendebegreppet ger dock stöd åt exemplet. Sammantaget finns skäl för att regeringen åtminstone i viss utsträckning får besluta om polisinsatser. Vidare har konstaterats att regeringens beslut om att utse förundersökningsledare efter Palmemordet var tillåtet eftersom det inte gällde hur en myndighet sedan skulle besluta i de ärenden som täcks av 12 kap. 2 § RF. Detta talar för en restriktiv syn på bestämmelsens omfattning.

Regelverket kan sägas vara tydligt på en övergripande nivå men oklarheter uppdagas vid konkretisering som närmar sig gränsen mellan bestämmelserna. Ett lämpligt ämne för framtida forskning skulle vara regelverkets ändamålsenlighet. (Less)
Abstract
Chapter 12 Art. 1 of the Instrument of Government (IoG) stipulates that central government administrative authorities, in general, come under the Government. At the same time, the Government’s governance is limited by Ch. 12 Art. 2 of the IoG according to which the Government may not determine how an administrative authority shall decide in a particular case relating to the exercise of public authority vis-à-vis an individual or a local authority, or relating to the application of law. How much room for governance the rules provide has been debated over the years. The purpose of this thesis is to contribute to clarifying the meaning of the regulation. Given it is about examining what the applicable law is, a legal dogmatic method is... (More)
Chapter 12 Art. 1 of the Instrument of Government (IoG) stipulates that central government administrative authorities, in general, come under the Government. At the same time, the Government’s governance is limited by Ch. 12 Art. 2 of the IoG according to which the Government may not determine how an administrative authority shall decide in a particular case relating to the exercise of public authority vis-à-vis an individual or a local authority, or relating to the application of law. How much room for governance the rules provide has been debated over the years. The purpose of this thesis is to contribute to clarifying the meaning of the regulation. Given it is about examining what the applicable law is, a legal dogmatic method is employed.

It follows from the provision in Ch. 12 Art. 1 of the IoG that the authorities are required to comply with general directives as well as directives for particular cases from the Government. There is a broad consensus on this. However, in one instance it has been questioned on linguistic grounds whether a duty of obedience really arises from the provision. The existing governance tools – instructions, letters of appropriation, and government mandates – all have connections to the provision in question, but not of the same type.

The provision on the independence of administration in Ch. 12 Art. 2 of the IoG is only applicable if all the cumulative conditions and one of the alternative conditions regarding the exercise of public authority and application of law are fulfilled. Furthermore, a restrictive view of the scope of the provision reflects current law. One exception is that “determine” should be given a broad meaning. The Government may always issue general directives. This could enable other governance tools than those used today, where legal position papers are a proposal. Directives for particular cases are allowed regarding de facto activity, such as producing activities, and administrative cases that do not relate to the exercise of public authority or the application of the law, such as civil law matters. However, the dividing lines are not entirely clear. An example in this respect is the operational activities of the police.

It has been suggested that the Government could order the police to storm a building on the grounds that it is de facto activity. This distinction from case management has been criticised by some. However, the fact that the example has been used by the Committee on the Constitution, among others, and the restrictive view of the concept of administrative cases support the example. Overall, there are reasons why the Government should be allowed to decide on police operations, at least to some extent. It has also been recognised that the Government’s decision to appoint the person in charge of the investigation after the Palme murder was permissible because it did not concern how an authority should then decide in the cases covered by Ch. 12 Art. 2 of the IoG. This argues in favour of a restrictive view of the scope of the provision.

The regulatory framework can be said to be clear at a general level, but uncertainties are revealed when concretisation approaches the boundary between the provisions. A suitable topic for future research would be the appropriateness of the regulatory framework. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Petersson, Benjamin LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Freedom in obedience: On the scope and limits of the Government's governance over the authorities
course
JURM02 20251
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
statsrätt, konstitutionell rätt, förvaltningsrätt, offentlig rätt, regeringens styrning, lydnadsplikt, direktivrätt, förvaltningens självständighet, den svenska förvaltningsmodellen, ärendehandläggning, faktiskt handlande, myndighetsutövning, instruktioner, regleringsbrev, regeringsuppdrag, informella kontakter, rättsliga ställningstaganden
language
Swedish
id
9189197
date added to LUP
2025-06-11 10:00:20
date last changed
2025-06-11 10:00:20
@misc{9189197,
  abstract     = {{Chapter 12 Art. 1 of the Instrument of Government (IoG) stipulates that central government administrative authorities, in general, come under the Government. At the same time, the Government’s governance is limited by Ch. 12 Art. 2 of the IoG according to which the Government may not determine how an administrative authority shall decide in a particular case relating to the exercise of public authority vis-à-vis an individual or a local authority, or relating to the application of law. How much room for governance the rules provide has been debated over the years. The purpose of this thesis is to contribute to clarifying the meaning of the regulation. Given it is about examining what the applicable law is, a legal dogmatic method is employed.

It follows from the provision in Ch. 12 Art. 1 of the IoG that the authorities are required to comply with general directives as well as directives for particular cases from the Government. There is a broad consensus on this. However, in one instance it has been questioned on linguistic grounds whether a duty of obedience really arises from the provision. The existing governance tools – instructions, letters of appropriation, and government mandates – all have connections to the provision in question, but not of the same type.

The provision on the independence of administration in Ch. 12 Art. 2 of the IoG is only applicable if all the cumulative conditions and one of the alternative conditions regarding the exercise of public authority and application of law are fulfilled. Furthermore, a restrictive view of the scope of the provision reflects current law. One exception is that “determine” should be given a broad meaning. The Government may always issue general directives. This could enable other governance tools than those used today, where legal position papers are a proposal. Directives for particular cases are allowed regarding de facto activity, such as producing activities, and administrative cases that do not relate to the exercise of public authority or the application of the law, such as civil law matters. However, the dividing lines are not entirely clear. An example in this respect is the operational activities of the police.

It has been suggested that the Government could order the police to storm a building on the grounds that it is de facto activity. This distinction from case management has been criticised by some. However, the fact that the example has been used by the Committee on the Constitution, among others, and the restrictive view of the concept of administrative cases support the example. Overall, there are reasons why the Government should be allowed to decide on police operations, at least to some extent. It has also been recognised that the Government’s decision to appoint the person in charge of the investigation after the Palme murder was permissible because it did not concern how an authority should then decide in the cases covered by Ch. 12 Art. 2 of the IoG. This argues in favour of a restrictive view of the scope of the provision.

The regulatory framework can be said to be clear at a general level, but uncertainties are revealed when concretisation approaches the boundary between the provisions. A suitable topic for future research would be the appropriateness of the regulatory framework.}},
  author       = {{Petersson, Benjamin}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Frihet i lydnaden: Om utrymmet och gränserna för regeringens styrning av myndigheterna}},
  year         = {{2025}},
}