Migrationsverkets utredningsansvar i asylprocessen : En studie om domstolarnas bedömning av Migrationsverkets tillämpning av officialprincipen

Sammanfattning: Seeking asylum is a human right, which means that all states in the world that have signed the UN Refugee Convention are responsible for ensuring that refugees in need of protection can get it. Sweden has signed the UN Refugee Convention as early as in 1954. Thus, a legally secure asylum process is to be sought. The Swedish Migration Agency has a central role in this, as the reception of refugees is the primary responsibility of the Agency. The Migration Agency's case management must therefore comply with the requirements regarding ensuring the protection of people who are forced to flee, in Swedish, European and international law. A basic principle of asylum cases is that it is the applicant who has the burden of proof to make his protection needs plausible. On the other hand, the Migration Agency has an extended investigative responsibility, as there is a strong protection interest in investigations of asylum cases. The so-called officialprincipen places a demand on the Migration Agency to investigate a case to the extend its nature requires. If the work of Migrations Agency does not meet these requirements, the result may be that deficiencies in the investigation are put on the applicant and that the application gets rejected. Deficiency in case management by the Migration Agency, apart from that it is affecting individuals, and can destroy a life, can also, in the long run, have devastating consequences for the entire Swedish legal system. It also means more work for the courts, double work for the Migration Agency and increased costs for the judiciary system.     The change of the instance procedure in 2005 has greatly improved the asylum process. The case law in the area has meant that the courts can check the Migration Agency's investigations and give references to the Migration Agency about what needs to be done in order for the administrative process to be more legally secure. My conclusion is that the Swedish legal order in this area is changing as more demands are made by the EU and due to the EU's increased competence in the area. When it comes to the actual design of the provision for the officialprincipen, it is rather vaguely designed. The frameworks for what is covered by the Migration Agency’s investigative duty appear relatively diffuse for the Agency. Hopefully, the provision in the new Administration Act, and a more solid case law in the area, will result in a more uniform and predictable enforcement of the officialprincipen at the Migration Agency.