Talk:Judiciary of Sweden

Sweden High‑importance

	Sweden portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Judiciary, Law and Police

I think this article confuses judicial system, law enforcement and law. Possibly the name should be changed or the article should be rewritten to only cover the court system. Any thoughts? -Duribald (talk) 14:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rule of Law in Sweden?

Interestingly, the Swedish courts are described as government agencies. According to the 1974 Swedish constitutional charter, that is by and large correct. But it will need some explaining to an English speaking audience. Especially if you claim that they uphold the rule of law.

Most of all, it suggests that there is no rule of law in Sweden, because the executive alone can not and will not uphold the rule of law. To the contrary, the purpose of rule of law is to check government excerise of power. This is also the case. Sweden has a legal political doctrine that stipulates rule by law, not rule of law. There is no rule of law in Sweden for Swedes, unless you take recourse to the European court. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.10.249.136 (talk) 09:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Swedish Instrument of Government describes Sweden as a "democratic rechtsstaat" and clearly stipulates that the exercise of government power is to be done "under the laws". Executive decisions and laws are reviewed by the courts (who are not allowed to apply any law that clearly violates the constituion or EU law), by the European Court of Justice, the European Court of Human Rights and by several ombudsmen. --Reign of Toads 10:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you seriously consider this as an argument? You cite, what seems to be Regeringsformen. You actually believe everything that is stated in this document? Besides, your rendering of it contradcits you. Under the laws does not mean rule of law. It is not possible to interpret it that way. Laws and acts of government are not reviewed by the courts. The Regeringsform states that the violation has to be "uppenbar". This has been interpreted to mean never, by the Swedish parliament. This is basic knowledge about the Swedish constitution, found in university text books (see, for example, Nergelius). Actually there is a reform pending of the Regeringsform in which a limited form of legal review will be introduced. Why would that be needed, if Sweden already has legal review? You clearly know nothing about Swedish constitutional debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.136.76.151 (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rule of law does not only concern reviewing the legitimacy of laws. It concern how states are governed. The Swedish Constitution could not make the Rule of law any clearer; the third sentence of the first paragraf of the first section reads: "Government is exercised under law". What constitutions have clearer, more prominent rules of law than that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.215.207 (talk) 09:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Courts are usually government agencies, in most countries. The big difference is that whether or not policies are set by an executive ministry (eg. the Ministry of Justice), like in most of Europe, or an independent judicial agency, like the United States (eg. the Judicial Conference of the United States and the Judicial Council of California). Int21h (talk) 21:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Judiciary of Sweden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Newly added text

I believe that the recent additions were non-neutral, mostly unsupported but in few cases weakly supported, e.g. by references to primary sources. I have kept some of the changes that were non-controversial additions or improved the wording, but I removed most of the unsourced/poorly sourced text. In particular text like these would need strong sourcing from secondary sources (my italics):

These special courts has a narrow jurisdiction as definied by special laws, and depending on the cases particular content may or may not lack independence and impartiality versus the parties or the executive power.
Judgments of the Migration courts has recently been considered automatically to be void and null if the judgment is deemed a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights and as a consequence unlawful by Swedish internal law-
Lower courts generally doesn't have the courage or authority to perform the role of judicial review whereas the higher courts generally believes that they must ask the government for permission to conduct judicial review or to fully use the jurisdiction granted to them by law.
Judges start their career by applying to the Ministry of Justice, who after primarily political considerations accepts about 30% of applicants.
Judges in Sweden are considered to belong to the political party whose government accepted them into training...
...will hear cases that may become precedent or otherwise cases relationg to ... personal interests of the judiciary.

There were also some parts that were misleading such as "Lay judges represent their political parties in court." While technically true that they are nominated by political parties the source states in the first sentence that being a lay judge is not a political office.

In the text about only advocates being public defenders the source was misrepresented. The text "As a public defender a suitable advocate/attorney shall be appointed, .... ." continues "If there are specific causes, another suitable person can be appointed.." (continues with the prerequisites, none of which is that the defender is a member of the Bar). Sjö (talk) 07:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pennanochsvärdet: The reversal of my edit and the addition of text didn't improve the situation. Most of the statements above are still unsourced ("Lower courts..." was replaced). Several new unsourced items were added, such as the state "more oftan than not" being a party to proceedings in some courts, the "political officer" of the court, and critique of the use of jurors. Several sources are WP:PRIMARY or don't support the text (e.g. when the text is a generalization but the source covers one specific case.) Also, explanatory notes aren't sufficient as sources.

However, some of the changes could be improvements to wording, sources or facts, but right now I don't have time to go through the text and determine which of the changes are worth keeping. I'll come back to the article in a couple of days, which I think will be time to improve sourcing or remove the unsourced text. Sjö (talk) 10:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]