@misc{9226895,
  abstract     = {{Clinical-level prioritizations in health care determine both which patients are to receive treatment and which treatment method is to be used in the individual case. Although such prioritizations may, in certain instances, have quite far-reaching consequences for the individual, it is currently unclear whether they may be subject to judicial review. 

The purpose of this thesis is therefore to examine whether certain clinical-level prioritizations in health care can be challenged by way of administrative appeal under Section 41 of the Administrative Procedure Act (2017:900) or Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The analysis is based on two typified cases: first, a decision to refrain from placing a patient on a waiting list for organ transplantation, and second, a decision made in the context of triage in an emergency department. The legal-dogmatic method is used in order to fulfil the purpose of the thesis. 

The thesis first examines whether the prioritizations in the typified cases may be regarded as administrative decisions in the legal sense. In this regard, particular attention is paid to the meaning of the concept of ”administrative decision” and the distinction between statements and concrete administrative activity.

The thesis then addresses whether the prioritizations in the typified cases can be regarded as appealable under Section 41 of the Administrative Procedure Act. In this context, the requirements for appealability are examined, namely that it must be a written administrative decision that affects the individual’s situation in a non-insignificant way. The analysis also considers the new assessment criteria developed by the Supreme Administrative Court, as articulated in HFD 2019 ref. 21.

Finally, the thesis examines whether Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights entails a right to judicial review of the prioritizations. This includes a closer examination of whether the prioritizations can be regarded as involving a civil right or obligation within the meaning of the Convention. 

The thesis concludes that the decision to refrain from placing a patient on a waiting list for organ transplantation should be regarded as an administrative decision. It should also be considered appealable under Section 41 of the Administrative Procedure Act. There are also grounds to assume that such a decision may be appealed under Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. With regard to the decision made in the context of triage in an emergency department, it is found that this too should be regarded as an administrative decision in the legal sense. However, it is not appealable under Section 41 of the Administrative Procedure Act, nor can it be appealed under Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights.}},
  author       = {{Engström, Ella}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{”Tyvärr, vi har slut på vård för tillfället” - Om förvaltningsrättsligt överklagande av vissa prioriteringar inom hälso- och sjukvården}},
  year         = {{2026}},
}