Fair trials’ rights under Swedish law of public administration (FL) are regulated by Article 7 of the Statute. Similarly, fair trials’ right under the European Convention of Human Rights (EU Convention) is regulated by Article 6.1. The essay conducts a comparative study of the two legislations and seeks to determine whether Article 7 of the Swedish law of public administration is consistent and compliance with Article 6.1 of the EU Convention. The essay identifies and examines ten cases that have been handled in different courts in Sweden on a comparative basis with samples of other cases handled by Justitieombudsmannen. The objective is to compare and determine whether fair trial process as provided for under Swedish legislation are consistent, or in compliance, with the EU Convention. In the determination of the fairness or otherwise of the procedural process, including the time-line it takes to dispose of a given case and whether the Swedish Court’s procedure is consistent with speedy trials’ requirements stipulated in the EU Convention, the essay examines the modalities adopted in interpretation of the different laws, rules and regulations by the different courts in Sweden. Where errors are identified, the essay will examine what corrective measures, if any, may be taken to redress these possible mistakes that may have resulted in violations of the rights of an applicant as a result of incompetence, failure or mistake of an employee in the public administration.  The analysis is focused on cases that have been poorly handled in the sense that the process was slow or ineffective and did not meet the threshold of fair trial and good governance. The essay examines situation where, in event of a violation of the applicable law by a public administrator, there are no sanctions provided, or corrective measures in the statute that may be available to an aggrieved party. The essay considers whether, as a result of a violation, there needs to be a provision in the law for compensating that aggrieved party. In conclusion, the essay suggests possible remedies, including compensation or a re-hearing of the application before a different panel of judges. These proposals may be considered if deemed useful or relevant in amending the Swedish law to provide corrective measures to an aggrieved party. / Sveriges domstolar och myndigheter har genom åren fått kritik från domstolsverket och Justitieombudsmannen, (JO), angående långa handläggningstider. Under åren 1999-2008 har Sverige varit part i 25 domar hos Europadomstolen, där enskilda inte fått sin rätt till rättvis rättegång inom skälig tid enligt EKMR, artikel 6.1. uppfylld. Förvaltningslagen, (FL), som gäller för handläggning av ärenden inom förvaltningsmyndigheter och domstol, har under åren ändrats väldigt mycket. Just frågan om förvaltningsförfarandet, snabb, billig och effektiv handläggning, har på olika sätt blivit behandlats i propositioner och motioner. Syftet med lagen är att garantera enskildas rättsäkerhet, som är grunderna för en “god” förvaltning. Hur denna tidsaspekt och tidsfrist inom snabb, enkel och billig handläggning har tolkats, kommer vi med hjälp av olika lagar, förordningar, praxis m.m., behandla i denna uppsats.