Vem är sista bossen? - Om hanteringen av återkrav i domstol

Sammanfattning: A large number of Swedish citizens annually receive allowance by various Swedish authorities. It is inevitable that no such payment is inaccurate. If that would happen, a decision-making authority may issue a repayment decision that obliges an individual to repay the issued compensation. For various reasons such a decision can come under a court’s trial. An individual may consider the repayment decision being incorrect and thus wants to have it removed. An authority may bring an action to enable the decision content to be enforced. This raises a question of the jurisdiction of the Swedish courts. The purpose of the essay is to examine how the jurisdiction of the courts appears in cases of repayment decisions and whether procedural differences can arise depending on which court that becomes qualified. Taking into account any procedural differences, the essay also intends to take a stand on how repayment decisions most appropriately should be handled. The examination, in regard of the jurisdiction, has shown that both general administrative courts and general courts are qualified to examine a repayment decision. A general administrative court may be qualified by an appeal of an individual. An appeal presupposes that the repayment decision constitutes an appealable decision, meaning that it entails a sufficient financial impact. A general court may become qualified either by an individual initiating a legal proceeding or by an authority doing so. If a repayment decision would not meet the requirements for appeal only a general court may be qualified. By bringing an action in a general court, it is possible for an authority to obtain an enforceable judgment. Through such a judgment, an authority can ensure that the notified decision can be enforced. Since an authority is prevented from bringing an action in a general administrative court, it’s only possibility to enforce its decision is by obtain an enforceable judgment in a general court Since the current order confers jurisdiction to both courts, any procedural differences are of central importance to the question of how a repayment decision most appropriately should be handled. The examination has shown that an individual is granted a much better legal protection in a general administrative court than in a general court. This is due to the courts’s responsibility to examine and the process framework being more extensive in a general administrative court. The essay concludes that the general administrative court alone should be qualifed to handle repayment decisions. In order to enable such an arrangement, it is necessary to grant all repayment decisions enforceability. Due to making repayment decision enforceable, a decision-making authority has a certainty to execute its decisions at the same time as an individual is granted a right to appeal.