Public administration plays a major role in some countries that benefits citizens and government. Therefore, the government needs to uphold a standard of effectiveness in public administration. Research has been done in effectiveness in public administration in individual countries with limited research on certain aspects. However, not much research has been done on effectiveness of public administration which is linked to case management in Scandinavian countries. In the Swedish Administration Act, an efficiency principle has been incorporated which provides an opportunity for the delay in the case of delayed processing. At present there is no such opportunity in Norway. Aim to clarify what protection there is for individuals against delay in case management in Swedish and Norwegian law and whether this is consistent with the international commitments to which the countries are bound, primarily the principle of efficiency. The purpose is therefore to clarify what applies in each country, and to compare protection in both countries and whether this is compatible with international law, primarily the European Convention and EU law. Two methods have been used: the legal dogmatic and the comparative method. The result indicates that there is clearly that both countries tried to reduce resources in administrative case management by simplifying the rule. But this is not closed to meeting the requirement for efficiency in case management. Imposing penalties for case handling are not enough if there is no effective remedy that can uphold international law. Consequently, the delay speech without effective remedies will not lead to any major changes in practice in Swedish law. Norway is in the process of reviewing its provisions. This study is expected to draw attention to international law that is linked to public administration.

Les juges non professionnels ne se résument pas à un concept dont l’unité est relative, ils forment également une catégorie de fait. Ils sont des tiers non-magistrats, rattachés directement ou indirectement à une juridiction, dotés d’une mission juridictionnelle non professionnelle parce qu’inhabituelle et dépourvue d’un objectif de rémunération. Cette définition préalablement posée ne permet cependant pas de postuler l’existence d’une catégorie juridique. La catégorisation suppose en effet de rechercher la commune nature des objets d’étude. La réussite de l’entreprise dépend par conséquent de la découverte d’une unité certaine entre les juges non professionnels et d’une opposition marquée vis-à-vis des juges de carrière. C’est précisément le propre d’une théorie générale du procès dédiée aux juges non professionnels que de répondre à ces questions. Quelles sont les particularités institutionnelles et procédurales des juges non professionnels ? Suffisent-elles pour conclure à l’existence d’une catégorie juridique ? Les juges non professionnels ne s’inscrivent-ils pas dans la lignée des juges professionnels formant ainsi une simple variante au sein d’une catégorie juridique plus large, celle des juges ? La recherche est scindée en deux temps, ordonnée autour d’une distinction fondamentale. Le premier volet d’ordre institutionnel est l’occasion d’étudier les rapports entre le droit au procès et les juges non professionnels, le second volet d’ordre procédural permet d’analyser les relations des juges non professionnels avec le droit du procès / Lay judges cannot be reduced to a single concept as the unity of this concept is relative. The definition of lay judges gather different features. They are non-magistrates third party directly or indirectly attached to a court with a jurisdictional function. Their task is unusual and they lack of compensation goals. This definition previously stated does not yet allow to postulate a legal category. The categorisation itself would imply the search of common grounds between the objects of study. The success of the project depends on the findings of unity between the lay judges themselves and on significant difference compared to the professional judges. The main function of a general theory of the trial dedicated to lay judges is to answer these following questions. What are the institutional and procedural features of lay judges? Are they sufficient to conclude that there is a legal category? Would the lay judges fit in the line of professional judges forming a simple variant in a broader legal category? The research will be divided into two stages, both organised around a fundamental distinction. The first part, of institutional order, will be an opportunity to study the relationship between the right to trial and the lay judges. The second part, of procedural order, will analyse the relationship of lay judges with a right for trial