Lagförslagsgranskning: en tandlös tiger? : En komparativrättslig studie om lagförslagsgranskning i Sverige och Nederländerna

Sammanfattning: This comparative legal thesis discusses abstract judicial preview in Sweden and the Netherlands. Both countries have Councils of State in place that are tasked with advising government on legislation and governance to maintain a congruent judicial system. The aim of the analysis is to examine, describe and compare the judicial preview of law proposals carried out in Sweden and the Netherlands. By applying a legal-dogmatic method and a comparative law method the results show that abstract judicial preview of law proposals in Sweden and the Netherlands share both similarities and differences. The primary similarity infers that the judgements of the Councils of State have no binding effect for the legislator. Regarding the differences, the Swedish Council of State mainly focuses on advising the government on legislation, whilst the Dutch Council of State consists of two divisions that operate under the same name. The Administrative Jurisdiction Division is the country’s highest general administrative court and the Advisory Division, as implied by its name, advises the government and Parliament in matters regarding legislation and governance. Finally, one of the surprising conclusions show that an official from the relevant Swedish department of state recites a bill before the Council of State. This differs from the Netherlands, where the Council of State operates behind closed doors when a bill is put forward. Meaning that it does not occur that an official or any other outsider is involved in assessing bills and other requests for advice. In conclusion, abstract judicial preview in Sweden and the Netherlands plays a fundamental role in contributing to a harmonious legal order and norm hierarchy.