This study concerns the legal requirement of contravention as a prerequisite for any parties right to appeal decisions according to the Swedish Public Administration Act. In this study, we examine the legal statute, its significance and its function in administrative law. In order to carry out this study, we have examined the historical background of the aforementioned statue, its legislative history and its stated purpose at introduction. We have also done a through investigation of various legal cases, which has enabled us to analyze how this requirement of contravention is understood in practice and how it is applied. The purpose of this part of the study has been to compare the application in practice with the function of the contravention-requirement as stated in legislative preparatory documents, and also to examine and analyze whether court judgements on this matter are in agreement.

   Everyone has the right to express dissatisfaction with government decisions and to submit appeals. The function of any public administration regulation is to regulate the interaction of power between government and individuals and its prime objective is not seldom the protection of citizens against state authority. In this, the right to appeal a government decision is a key element. All people come in contact with a government decision as some point during their lives and can end up in a situation where they do not share the assessment of the deciding authority, which makes this an important topic for research.

   The right to appeal a decision must however, for reasons that are obvious, be limited in some way so as to avoid a waste of common resources. Appealability and the issue of standing are two legal concepts that serve are infringements on the general right to appeal. Any decision can be appealed, but only if it is appealable. And whoever wishes to appeal the decision can do so, provided that they have standing and can show contravention. In other words, the decision appealed must first and foremost be a decision, and then be one that concerns the complainant to some reasonable extent.

   We first became familiar with this matter through a decision of the Supreme Administrative Court of Sweden, 7873-13, the so-called name-case. The case concerns a women that applied to change her name, was allowed to do so in a decision and then appealed that same decision on the grounds that she had changed her mind. We find that the statutory text is clear in that it requires contravention, but what contravention, i.e. a decision having gone against someone, actually means or how it should be understood or assessed is not clear. It is for this reason that 

we have decided to research this matter further and to investigate and analyze what the legal contravention-requirement means in practice.