No description available.

The European Convention guarantees the right to assembly. Since the ratification of the Convention Sweden has been obligated to make proportionality balances when granting or restricting the right. However, the process of how the proportionality assessments work when cancelling or dissipating a public gathering, and thereby limit the right to protest, is unmapped. Therefore, the aim of this study is to analyze the legal problems that emerges by studying the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s and the Chancellor of Justice’s proportionality assessments relating to the right to protest. This will be done by comparing nine decisions made by the Parliamentary Ombudsman and the Chancellor of Justice between 1995 and today (2017).   The study concludes that the Parliamentary Ombudsman and the Chancellor of Justice overall made proportionality assessments and thereby respected the principle of proportionality. However, some legal problems complicated the assessments. The definition of resolution, public gathering and severe disorder can differ, which can result in discretional exercise of official authority. This may, in turn, restrict the freedom of assembly and thereby be a threat to the democracy.

Uppsatsen behandlar den förbudsförordning som trädde i kraft sedan covid-19 pandemin fick sitt utbrott i Sverige. Förordningnen innebar viss tolkningsproblematik för både allmänheten och myndigheter avseende deltagarbegreppet. Uppsatsen syftar till att besvara frågorna om när restriktionerna är tillämpliga och vilka som omfattas av deltagarbegreppet, samt att redovisa och analysera de skillnader som finns i tolkningen av deltagarbegreppet och de konsekvenser som kan uppstå till följd av detta.

This thesis focuses on chapter 3 articles 8 and 12 of the Ordinance Act, whichdeal with local ordinances issued by the municipalities. It was Vellinge municipality's local ordinances on the prohibition of begging that triggered an extensivedebate about preconditions for local ordinances and the relationship between themunicipal self-government and the normative power. In addition, it raises thequestions of whether local regulations on the prohibition of begging restrict freedom of expression and whether they are discriminatory. Vellinge's local ordinances were submitted to the Supreme Administrative Court (HFD) to decidethe case as the highest instance.HFD states in the case 2018 ref. 75 that local ordinances issued by the municipalities take into account the principle of municipal self-government. This statement has been criticized on the ground that local ordinances should not be considered as a municipal activity. The principle of municipal self-government therefore should not be actualized in local ordinances. But HFDs statement is compatible with the bill to the law, which states that with regard to municipal selfgovernment, the authority to issue local ordinances are given to the municipalitiesand not to the county administrative board. However the county administrativeboard should be able to review all the prerequisites for adopting local regulations.Furthermore, HFD has not dealt with this issue whether local ordinances onthe prohibition of begging conflict with regulations of a higher value or apply toissues that must be regulated by law. HFD has thus not dealt with whether theban on begging restricts freedom of expression and whether it is discriminatory. Begging can be considered as an expression in the Form of Government (RF)and is protected by freedom of expression. The ban on begging therefore violatesfreedom of speech and it must, however, be regulated by law and not by localregulations.Furthermore, given that the ECHR is considered a law in Sweden and theEuropean Court of Human Rights refers to the US judicial precedent on freedomof expression, the American law on freedom of speech and begging has also beenstudied in this thesis in the comparative method.According to the widespread case law in the United States, begging is protected by freedom of expression and regulations prohibiting begging violate beggar’s freedom of expression. There is also no legitimate ground to ban beggingon the streets. The ban on begging can also be considered discriminatory, as it is the peoplefrom Romania and Bulgaria who make up the majority of the beggars in Swedenand it is them who are disadvantaged by these rules.