Domstolsprövning av förvaltningsbeslut. Svensk, dansk och österrikisk rätt i komparativ belysning

Sammanfattning: This thesis contains a comparative study of the systems of judicial review of administrative decisions in Swedish, Danish, and Austrian law. The main aim of the study is to explore how the three legal systems balance certain interests and functions that are related to the phenomenon of judicial review of administrative acts: on the one hand, the principle of effective judicial protection as well as the need of an independent judicial control of the administration, and, on the other hand, the constitutional and institutional capacity of the administration as well as the constitutional separation of powers. This is done by an analysis of legal rules and principles governing when a judicial review of administrative acts is admissible as well as of the scope, intensity, and result of the review itself. The Swedish administrative court procedure has often been described as “different”, both in terms of the possibilities to get a judicial review of administrative acts as well as the scope of the judicial review itself. In addition to the overarching aim of the study, it is a specific purpose of the study to examine to what extent the Swedish system (in relation to the Danish and the Austrian system) is different and how these (proposed) differences (and similarities) can be explained.In addition to an introduction (chapter 1), the thesis contains five main chapters (chapters 2-6). Chapter 2 examines the historical development of the systems of judicial control of the administration in the three countries. Chapter 3 gives an overall presentation of the three administrative and judicial systems. In chapter 4, the legal rules and principles for admissibility are analysed. Chapter 5 analyses the scope, intensity, and result of the judicial review. Chapter 6 contains a summary and discussion of the main results.