Sedan terroristattackerna som inträffade i USA 11 september 2001 har penningtvätt blivit ett väldigt uppmärksammat problem. Det var efter händelserna som åtgärderna inom penningtvätt fick en större innebörd, både internationellt och likaväl nationellt. Begreppet fick en bredare omfattning där bland annat finansiering av terrorism tillämpades. Penningtvätt kan tolkas som ett definitionsproblem eftersom begreppet är väldigt vidsträckt, dessutom kan penningtvätt genomföras genom flera olika metoder och behöver därför utvidgade åtgärder. Bekämpningen är idag väldigt stor, både genom EU-penningtvättsdirektiv, internationella organisationer och den svenska lagstiftningen. Det globala samarbetet är ett stort verktyg för att förhindra den fria rörligheten av kapital och tjänster. Kan vi stoppa finansiering av kriminell verksamhet, så är vi ett steg närmare att stoppa penningtvätt som är organiserad brottslighet.

Utvecklingen inom penningtvätt går framåt, nya bestämmelser analyseras av EU samt internationella organisationer och tillämpas därefter i medlemsstaterna. Men ibland kan man fråga sig hur långt skall den internationella regleringen gå gällande den enskildas rättigheter och hur förhåller rättssäkerheten sig till effektiviseringen av penningtvätt. I Sverige är det brottsbekämpande myndigheterna och tillsynsmyndigheterna som utför grunderna och tillsynen i åtgärderna. Verksamhetsutövarna har den viktigaste uppgiften att tillämpa regleringarna, men hur resultatrikt arbetet är, är dock en annan fråga.

Denna uppsats kommer behandla penningtvätt dels utifrån Europeiska Unionens  penningtvättsdirektiv och andra internationella organisationers bestämmelser, dels från de svenska rättssystemet regleringar och efterlevnad. Vidare kommer uppsatsen beröra rättssäkerhetsfrågan där den enskildas, både den fysiska och juridiska personens, rättigheter och skydd står i fokus vid den offentliga maktens handlande. 

Judicial preview acts as a tool to assure that no laws to be enacted conflicts with the constitution. For that reason, it is of importance that the authorities set to perform the judicial preview are independent towards the ruling power. The aim of this essay is to do a comparison between how judicial preview is done by the Council on Legislation in Sweden and by the Constitutional Council in France. The essay examines how this preview acts as a tool to guarantee the supremacy of the constitution and to insure a none confrontational legal system. This is done with the help of the method of comparative law and the legal dogmatic method. The result of the analysis shows that judicial preview plays an increasingly important role of guaranteeing the supremacy of constitutions in legal systems of increased complexity and in societies that are experiencing political tensions. The result also shows that the constitutions in both Sweden and France is increasing in importance to protect the ways of government, democracy and basic rights for the citizens. Based on the analysis the forms of judicial preview should be reviewed and stronger safeguards for the constitution may be of interest in the future.

This book offers a unique overview of the main legal systems of administrative sanctions with thorough analyses of the administrative law sanctioning systems in 13 Member States and the European Union. The focus is on both remedial and  deterrent sanctions in administrative law. Especially where deterrent sanctions are involved, the aspects of national and international constitutional law are analysed as well as the influences of criminal law approaches in this legal area. After a general analysis of the definitions of sanction, thorough country analyses are presented of Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom. The book concludes with an analysis of administrative sanctions in EU Law

An effective, inclusive democracy requires maximal transparency of ‘public information’ while, on the contrary, limiting transparency of ‘personal information’ to the minimum. However, these two transparencies have an intricate relationship: they may be independent of each other, complementary to each other, or antinomical. Additionally, the development of an information society that leads to the fusion of the  private and public spheres, the cross-utilization by the public and private sectors of their respective data, and to an increase in the dangers common to both sectors, further complicates the picture. In weakening individuals as human beings and citizens, the digital era generates threats for democracy and the Rule of Law. There is, therefore, a need for an adequate protective framework and for the main legal protagonists to face the new informational and societal challenges. The obligation to preserve underlying, foundational democratic values lies also with the business sector and with citizens themselves.

A concrete result of the 2011 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Durban (COP17) was the establishment of the Green Climate Fund (GCF), with the aim of channelling $100 billion per year from developed countries to developing countries to support their efforts to respond to climate change and promote sustainable development. The emerging global architecture for climate finance raises significant questions related to public policy and environmental governance. Participatory governance practices, including freedom of information, are increasingly considered effective tools for both coping with environmental problems and finding sustainable solutions to development challenges. Moreover, without sufficient transparency in their decision making, the various climate funds are unlikely to attract a sufficient supply of urgently needed finance, and the ambitious targets of the GCF will be unmet. Yet, the question of the modality and process for governing climate finance is undetermined and obscure. The complexity of climate finance stems from a multi-level structure with international, regional, national, and sub-national actors; multi-sector dimensions, with both public and private donors and recipients; and the sector’s global/multilateral/multidirectional character. This article amplifies the “transparency pressure points” in climate finance generally and the GCF specifically. Public policymaking, in response to the many complex and urgent climate change challenges, may depend on securing the principle of freedom of information within the global climate finance architecture.

Den här uppsatsen utgår från det upphandlingsdirektiv som Europeiska unionen antog 2014, ett direktiv som skulle modernisera och uppdatera föråldrade upphandlingsregler inom hela den europeiska gemenskapen. Uppsatsen tittar närmare på de direktivartiklar som ställer krav på upphandlande myndigheters motiveringsskyldighet som är en del av det som inom EUrätten kallas för principen om god förvaltning. En rättssäkerhetsprincip som ska garantera den enskildes trygghet emot maktutövare. Beslut som fattas av maktutövare ska motiveras för att öka transparensen och öppenheten. Uppsatsen tar också upp det som inom EU-rätten kallas för medlemsländernas processuella autonomi, ett begrepp som innebär att medlemsländer har rätt till visst självbestämmande när det kommer till hur deras förvaltningsarbete ska skötas och verka, så länge EU-rättens mål och krav genomförs ska medlemsstaterna själva kunna bestämma över genomförandet. För att EU ska kunna rättfärdiga att de gör intrång i medlemsländernas självbestämmande måste de kunna hänvisa till grundfördragens mål.

Syftet men den här uppsatsen är att undersöka hur artiklarna om motiveringsskyldighet implementerades av Sverige. Uppsatsen ämnar också kommentera förhållandet mellan artiklarna om motiveringsskyldighet och den processuella autonomin som medlemsländerna har i förhållande till unionen. Uppsatsen söker också svar på motiveringsskyldigheten inom offentlig upphandlingsförfarandet kan komma att användas i framtiden.

Slutsatsen som uppsatsen leder fram till är att de artiklar som ålägger myndigheter att motivera individuella beslut hade kunnat genomföras med den svenska förvaltningslagen och är således inte nödvändiga för att upprätthålla en god konkurrens inom offentlig upphandling. Däremot är de artiklar som rör normbeslut inte genomförbara med hjälp av Sveriges tolkning av motiveringsskyldigheten och därför nödvändiga försvarbara i förhållande till konkurrensen. Den andra slutsatsen uppsatsen kommer fram till är att EU tenderar att använda motiveringsskyldigheten som ett verktyg för att driva igenom och normalisera deras vision för upphandlingsförfarandet. Om utgångspunkten för motiveringsskyldigheten är att främja rättssäkerheten för den enskilde så har EU använt denna utgångspunkt för att driva igenom sin politiska vision och inte bara för att stärka den enskildes ställning i förhållande till myndigheter. Det är ingen hemlighet att EU ser offentlig upphandling som ett viktigt område där de har stora möjligheter att påverka utvecklingen.

Following an increase in Roma migration under the European “freedom of movement” laws, Swedish municipalities initiated more than 80 evictions of informal Roma settlements on the grounds of poor sanitation between 2013 and 2016. These evictions echo policies from earlier in the 20th century, when Roma living in Sweden were often marginalized through the denial of access to water and sanitation facilities. The recent Swedish evictions also follow similar government actions across Europe, where Roma settlements are controlled through the denial of access to water and sanitation. However, access to water and sanitation—central aspects of human health—are universal human rights that must be available to all people present in a jurisdiction, regardless of their legal status. The evictions described here violated Sweden’s obligations under both European and international human rights law. More positive government responses are required, such as providing shelters or camping sites, setting up temporary facilities, and directly engaging with communities to address water and sanitation issues. The authors conclude by providing guidance on how states and municipalities can meet their human rights obligations with respect to water and sanitation for vulnerable Roma individuals and informal settlements in their communities. © 2017 Davis and Ryan.

Denna studie undersöker förändringar i den svenska migrationspolitiska diskursen under året 2015, som resulterade i ändringen av migrationslagstiftningen i syfte att kraftigt minska antalet asylsökande. Målet med undersökningen, av det politiska landskapet för svensk styrning av migrationsfrågan, är att definiera de prioriteringar som ledde till bland annat införande av lagen (2015:1073) om särskilda åtgärder vid allvarlig fara för den allmänna ordningen eller den inre säkerheten i landet och lagen (2016:752) om tillfälliga begränsningar av möjligheten att få uppehållstillstånd i Sverige. Studiens huvudfokus ligger alltså i analysen av riksdagens migrationsdiskurs som, genom att utmåla migration som en säkerhetsrisk, tvingar fram ”akuta åtgärder” i form av lagar som begränsar migration. Vi vill förstå de bakomliggande faktorerna för det ”nödläge” som läggs till grund för dessa lagar. Som utgångspunkt för vårt arbete har vi har valt att använda säkerhetiseringsteorin från den välkända, för sin freds- och säkerhetspolitiska forskningen, Köpenhamnsskolan. Definitionen av begreppet säkerhetisering har en central roll i studiens metodologiska del. Den används som en nyckel för att avkoda det insamlade materialet som består av två propositionstexter till nya ”nödlagar” inom migrationsrätten, officiella uttalanden från svenska politiska partier och den svenska regeringen, samt den politiska debatten i form av exempelvis motioner. Denna studie inbjuder läsaren till att göra en perception av det politiska beslutsförfarandet på migrationsområdet utifrån säkerhetiseringsperspektivet. Säkerhetisering i det här fallet innebär, så som det har introducerats inom vetenskapen,  en process där politiska aktörer fastställer prioriteringar och beslutar om extraordinära åtgärder utifrån en utvärdering av riskerna och hoten som en specifik politisk fråga anses kunna medföra. Vi finner att kritisk diskursteori lämpar sig bäst som metod för att utvärdera det insamlade materialet och för att besvara studiens frågor. Avslutningsvis vill vi framföra att vi finner studiens frågor oerhört intressanta, viktiga och relevanta för statsvetenskapens forskningsområde. Vi anser även att frågor som vi lyfter i studien tillhör de mest diskuterade idag, både inom politiken och i samhället för övrigt.

Right to be Forgotten in Sweden 

Google has received about 15,000 requests for delisting regarding Swedish websites. Yet, in more than half of the cases the American search engine operator refused to remove the disputed websites from their results.

What kind of help may individuals to whom a request for delisting has been denied expect from public authorities expect from public authorities? In other words, how do the Swedish authorities apply the Google ruling? These are the questions we tackle in this paper, first by focusing on the manner in which the Data Protection Authority, the Datainspektion (DI), deals with the issue; then by looking on how the courts – in the current case, the ordinary judge – handle complaints against search engine operators’ decisions not to delist incriminated URLs.

The first section, dedicated to the theme of the right to be delisted and the data protection authority, begins with a brief review of the information provided by the Data Protection Authority’s website on the right to be forgotten and the manner to exercise it. We notice that there is a need for clearer information but that some improvements seem to be underway, not least concerning the right to erasure laid down in the General Data Protection Regulation.

The next two parts of Section 1 deal with the twofold procedure initiated in May 2015 by the DI towards Google, following complaints submitted to the Swedish authority. One part of the procedure concerns thirteen individual complaints selected by the DI that the Swedish supervisory authority required Google to review. The second part of the procedure consists of a general investigation of the way the American search engine operator complies with the European case law on the right to be forgotten. In a decision closing these two procedures on May 2nd 2017, the Data Protection Authority, assesses that in five of these cases Google’s reiterated refusal to delist websites from the search results were in breach of the Swedish data protection legislation and requires Google to delist the incriminated websites by August 2nd 2017. Moreover, the Swedish Data Protection Authority makes two recommendations to Google with regard to the procedure its removals-team follows when receiving a request from an individual to remove links. Additionally the DI requires Google to apply the right to be forgotten not only for search results on Google’s Swedish pages, but also on Google’s search engine for other countries that ”have such a relationship to Sweden and to the data subject that they cause an infringement in the privacy of the data subject”. The American search engine operator has three weeks from the date of reception of the decision for lodging an appeal to the administrative court.

The second section, entitled The right to be delisted and the ordinary judge, provides an analysis of the first Swedish judgment in the field. The court of first instance of Stockholm, in its decision from May 9^th 2016, made upon the appeal of a businessman in the construction sector complaining about the refusal of Google to remove links to webpages publishing critical articles regarding the plaintiff, decided in favor of the search engine operator. We analyse this judgement with a particular focus, first, on the balancing of the interests the judge makes in the present case, as well as on the legality of the data processing, and, second, on the question raised by the defendant on the competence of the ordinary judge to prohibit the continued processing of data. On the first issue, the Swedish authority, taking inter alia into account the role of public figure of the plaintiff and the seriousness of the news outlets which published the incriminated articles, concluded that the interests of Google and third persons to diffuse and access information contained in the articles outweight the right to protection of privacy and the right of data protection of the plaintiff. Consequently, the judge assessed that the data processing wasn’t illegal. On the second issue of the competence of the ordinary judge to order the cessation of the listing of websites, we first review the different opinions on that issue before raising the question of the compliance of the Swedish legal framework in terms of the effectiveness of the application of the European ruling on the right to be delisted.

Our general conclusion is that it is too early to give a straightforward appreciation on the way the Swedish authorities apply the right to be forgotten. Indeed, we don’t know how the legally robust decision taken by the DI in May 2017 will impact its policy in the field of the right to be forgotten; will the DI, for instance, endorse more individuals’ complaints? Furthermore, to this date, there has been no decision on the right to be forgotten by the administrative court and only one by an ordinary court. In any case, the absence of obligation for the Datainspektion to forward individual complaints to search engine operators, if combined with a lack of power for the ordinary judge to order a delisting, would raise questions on the effectivness in Sweden of the application of the right to be forgotten.

Pour faire face aux disparités territoriales qui affectent les capacités financières des communes, la Suède a mis en place un système de péréquation qui comporte cinq volets : les deux principaux sont la péréquation des revenus et la péréquation des coûts. S’y ajoutent la dotation de structures, la dotation pour coûts d’entrée ainsi qu’un compte de régularisation. Chacune de ces composantes est divisée entre un système dédié aux communes et un système dédié aux comtés. Ce système permet de concilier une large autonomie locale et l’égal accès de tous les citoyens au même niveau de service.

The paper examines the balancing between the right of access to information and the right to privacy in the context of online proactive disclosure of personal data. Proactive disclosure is understood as disclosure of information made by public authorities without a request having previously been made for such disclosure. Interestingly, the release upon request of official documents containing personal data normally does not activate data protection legis-lation in Sweden. In the case of proactive disclosure of official documents containing personal data, however, the data protection legislation must be followed. Jonason presents and analyses the legal framework, and shows how it has evolved over time. She illustrates the legal framework through the analysis of cases on proactive disclosure handled by the Swedish Data Protection Authority. In addition, guidelines concerning online proactive disclosure, drafted by the same authority for the benefit of local authorities, are taken into consideration. Jonason is especially interested in the balance-ing between the interest to protect privacy of the data subject and the interest of ensuring openness and transparency, and how this balancing is conveyed in the letter of the law, the preparatory works, as well as in the concrete implementation made by the Data Protection Authority. The conclusion reached by Jonason is that the current legal framework, constituted by different “layers”, is intricate. Changes on data processing made by public authorities should be expected, however, due to the General Regulation on Data Protection that will enter into force in 2018. This might constitute an opportunity for the legislator to rationalise the current legal framework.

Google Inc has received 54,038 requests to dereference Swedish URLs since the judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union, C-131/12 Costeja. After examining these requests, Google removed 43.7% of the search results (i.e. 23,613 URLs) but refused to dereference in 56.3% of cases (i.e. 30,425 URLs). In other words, Google refused to grant the dereferencing requests in a little over half of the cases, which corresponds to the average recorded by the American Internet search engine across all European countries.3What kind of help from public authorities may individuals to whom a request for delisting has been denied by the operator of a search engine have at their disposal? In other words, how do the Swedish authorities apply the Google ruling? These are the questions tackled in this paper, first focusing on the manner the Data Protection Authority, the Datainspektion (DI), deals with the issue, then looking at how the courts handle complaints against a search engine operator’s decision not to delist an incriminated URL.

This edited collection reports the results of a comparative study of video surveillance/CCTV in Germany, Poland, and Sweden. It investigates how video surveillance as technologically mediated social control is affected by national characteristics, with a specific concern for recent political history. The book is motivated by asking what makes video surveillance "tick" in three very different cultural settings, two of which (Poland and Sweden) are virtually unexplored in the literature on surveillance. The selection of countries is motivated by an interest in societies with recent experiences of authoritarianism, and how they respond to the global trend towards intensified technical means of control. With thorough empirical studies, the book constitutes an important contribution to security studies, surveillance studies, and post-communist area studies.

This publication gathers presentations from an international and trans-disciplinary workshop held at Södertörn University in December 2016.

The workshop entitled The Right of Access to Information and the Right to Privacy: A Democratic Balancing Act was one of the many events which celebrated the 250th anniversary of the Swedish Freedom of the Press Act, the first legal instrument in the world laying down the right of access to official documents. A starting point for the workshop was the assumption that the right of access to information and the right to privacy are both necessary pre-conditions for a democratic society. Researchers from a broad range of fields were invited to discuss how these assumptions should be examined, and how the balance between the two interests should be assessed when conflicting with each other. The objective of the workshop was to broaden our understanding of various national and disciplinary approaches to the democratic balance between the right of access and the right to privacy.

Among the conclusions we may draw from the workshop, and the articles emanating from it, is the confirmation of the need to strike the balance between the right of access and the right to privacy. This is certainly difficult, but since the two interests are both of such importance for democracy, we constantly need to make the effort. The articles in this volume contain information on some of the areas that need our further attention.

This study in comparative public law analyses if the courts have decided in the best interest of the child when judging for immediate care due to domestic violence. Both Sweden and Norway have transformed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) article 3 in parts of their national legislation. The difference between the countries is that Norway in 2003 incorporated CRC as a part of their legal policy, Sweden, on the other hand, has not integrated CRC in their national laws. There is a need for research if and how the local authorities and the courts in the two countries live up to the concept for the best interest of the child. Six court decisions from both countries as well as the development of the national legislation will be analyzed. To achieve our purpose, we will use the comparative and dogmatic legal method. The comparative method will be used when we compare the similarities and differences between their national legal system and the court's judgment for immediate care for the best interest of the child. The dogmatic legal method will be used for defining the current law.

The results of this study indicate that Norway has more appropriate laws for the best interest of the child. The difference between the countries is that in Norway the court can decide based on their child specific law. While the courts in Sweden only can decide for the best interest of the child with the interpretation based on the two laws but the code is not just for the child. Despite the differences, both Sweden and Norway have appropriate laws for how the local authorities and the court should promote the best interest of the child. In the future, we hope that it would be easier for the Swedish courts to apply the best interest of the child when CRC has been incorporated into the national legislation.