Politiskt inflytande eller rättssäkerhet, vilken vågskål ska väga tyngst? - en granskning av regeringens tillåtlighetsprövningar och fallet Preemraff i förhållande till artikel 6 EKMR.

Sammanfattning: Permissibility trials from the government have been a part of the Swedish environmental law system since the 1970s. The motives behind the law were that the government was the only part of the legal system who was able to consider different social interest in their trials and that you could make them politicly responsible for their decisions. In the case called “Preemraff”, the government decided to do a permissibility trial after the judgment from the first instance. Since it is the first time that the government ever do this, it is an example of when the government extends their own right. The act has led to a lot of criticism and some critics consider the act to be a breach against the Swedish constitution. The aim of this thesis is to examine the permissibility trials from the government and the act of the government in the Preemraff case from the perspective of the rule of law. Swedish law and the act in Preemraff will be examined in the light of article 6 ECHR. The thesis concludes that the government’s permissibility trial as a whole does not constitute a breach against article 6 ECHR. An interpretation of case-law from the European court of human rights leads to the conclusion that as soon as we have the law on judicial review in Sweden, which gives the Supreme court the right to legally try the decisions from the government, we fulfill the needs of article 6 ECHR. Furthermore, this thesis concludes that the act from the government in the case Preemraff can be criticized. After using different interpretation methods on Swedish law and also after interpreting case-law from the European court of human rights, it leads to the conclusion that the act was a breach both against Swedish law and the rights who are stated in article 6 ECHR.