Överklagbara förvaltningsbeslut - Vilka premisser konstituerar ett överklagbart beslut?

Detta är en Uppsats för yrkesexamina på avancerad nivå från Lunds universitet/Juridiska institutionen; Lunds universitet/Juridiska fakulteten

Sammanfattning: In 2017, the Administrative Procedure Act (2017:900) entered into force. It is intended to strengthen the judicial protection of the individual against the authorities. Section 41 § of the Administrative Procedure Act states that ”A decision may be appealed if the decision can be assumed to affect someone's situation in a not insignificant manner". This provision can be seen as a codification of the case-law developed by the Supreme Administrative Court in respect of appealable decisions and is not intended to amend the legal situation. Previously, the issue had not been dealt with in the Administrative Procedure Act (1986:223). The question of appealable decisions has been subjekt to discussion for a long time. The matter has been addressed in legislative history and legal literature. However, in recent years the timeliness of the issue has further increased with the efforts made by the government to strengthen the judicial protection of individuals in the administrative procedure. This thesis aims to examine and to analyze the circumstances under which a decision can be appealed, when special statutory regulation do not regulate this matter and whether the indtrocution of section 41 § is necessary. Legislative history och legal literature are important sources of law in this context. The principles concerning the appealability of administrative decisions have been developed in the case-law of the Supreme Administrative Court. Case-law has played an important complementary role in clarifying the legal situation. Administrative decisions can be appealed if they have a direct or indirect tangible impact on the individual. This includes decisions that can be enforced by coercive measures, e.g. the imposition of a conditional fine and decisions with legally binding impact on the final decision. Characteristic to such decisions are that they have legal effects which makes the decision appealable. In the last two decades, a case-law review has taken place. The recent decisons of the Supreme Administrative Court are pivotal in displaying the evolution that has taken place. It is most clearly expressed by the so-called ”Olive Oil Case” from 2004 (RÅ 2004 ref. 8). The occurence of legal effects are not a necessary condition for a decision to be appealed. Thus, certain decisions have been considered to be appealable without containing any legal effects. This has been considered to be the case if the decision has, or is likely to have an actual impact on the individual. The decisive factor today for a decision to be appealable often seems to be that it has been percieved as binding by the individual and that it is associated with a personal or economic impact for the individual concerned by the decision. This reflects the acutal effects of the decision. However, the juducial protection of individuals also seems to have importance in these cases. The Supreme Administrative Court has ruled that adequate judicial protection of individuals cannot be ensured only by the possibility of appealing against the final decision in the matter. However, it should be emphasized that the legal effects have not yet fully played out their role. They still indicate that the decision may be appealable. It is concluded that a decision can be appealed taking into account the legal and factual effects of the decision towards the individual, regardless of how it is labeled. Furthermore, it is concluded that the introduction of section 41 § is not necessary, but that it possibly strengthens the judicial protection of individuals in the administrative procedure.

  HÄR KAN DU HÄMTA UPPSATSEN I FULLTEXT. (följ länken till nästa sida)