Legal prism — 2026-09-18

Under Section 23, an agreement concluded by the landlord with an individual tenant is invalid if negotiation under the negotiation procedure has not taken place.

A decision on repayment of rent may, under Chapter 12, Section 18 a of the Land Code, not extend further back than two years before the application.

Core issue

When the parties in Värmland fail to reach a rent agreement, arbitration or a rent tribunal ultimately awaits – and in the meantime, the old rent applies, which opens the door to retroactive adjustment once a decision is issued. What is at stake is not a specific sanction, but a procedural lock: the negotiation procedure under the Act on Rent Negotiations (1978:304) obliges the parties to negotiate before the rent question can be examined, but the statute imposes no real consequences for prolonging the negotiations. The central legal question is when and how an unresolved rent dispute may be brought for examination, and which rent applies in the meantime. The decisive provisions are Section 5 (duty to negotiate on rent increases), Section 15 (requirement of a written request for negotiation and a meeting within three weeks), Section 23 (invalidity of agreements concluded without negotiation), and Section 11 a of the Act (1973:188) on agricultural tenancy boards and rent tribunals, which prevents the rent tribunal from examining the landlord's claim for higher rent if negotiation has not taken place.

Legal assessment

A negotiation procedure entails, under Section 5 of the Rent Negotiations Act, an obligation on the landlord to negotiate rent increases on their own initiative, unless the increase concerns an optional addition and does not exceed a price recommended by the parties.

• A party wishing to negotiate must, under Section 15, submit a written request stating the issues as well as a proposal for time and place; a meeting shall be held within three weeks of the counterparty's receipt of the request.

The landlord is then obliged to repay the amount collected in excess, together with interest under Section 6 of the Interest Act (1975:635) from the date of receipt.

• Section 11 a of the Act (1973:188) bars the rent tribunal from examining the landlord's claim for higher rent if negotiation has not taken place – but the claim may nonetheless be examined if the landlord has called for negotiation and encountered obstacles not attributable to them.
• The material contains no case law, and therefore no precedent can be cited.
• The opinion piece (Fastighetsägarna Värmland) proposes legislative amendments: a statutory right to refer a dispute to an arbitrator without a special agreement, a time limit on negotiations, and simplified proceedings before the rent tribunal. No such rules exist today.

Consequences

For tenants: continued uncertainty as to which rent applies, with a risk of retroactive increases once an arbitrator or the rent tribunal finally decides.

• For property owners: unclear revenues for large parts of the year, which, according to the article, complicates the planning of maintenance and investments.
• For the landlord: unilateral increases without completed negotiations are invalid under Section 23 and may give rise to an obligation of repayment with interest.
• Realistically, the parties will ultimately refer the dispute to an arbitrator, since the rent tribunal is barred under Section 11 a for as long as negotiation has not taken place or an obstacle cannot be shown.

Under Chapter 15, Section 4 of the Gambling Act, marketing that contravenes Section 1 shall, upon application of Sections 5, 23 and 26 of the Marketing Act (2008:486), be deemed unfair to consumers.

A comparative figure from the case law of the courts is the Advea case, in which the Patent and Market Court attached an interim fine totalling SEK 3.5 million to its decision.

Core issue

Postkodlotteriet now awaits a substantive hearing before the Patent and Market Court, where a single Instagram advertisement may result in an injunction under penalty of a fine — and likely in a precedent-setting interpretation of the moderation requirement in social media. The core of the case is whether a film featuring rain of winning cheques, SEK 101 million in gold-coloured text, and a time-limited half-price offer violates Chapter 15, Section 1 of the Gambling Act (2018:1138), which provides that moderation shall be observed in the marketing of gambling to consumers.

Legal assessment

KO's objection is twofold and must be weighed in an overall assessment:

• The film portrays the lottery as socially attractive, something everyone ought to participate in.
• The time limitation (half price with a final purchase date) creates the impression that it is urgent to buy lottery tickets.
• According to KO, the information should be limited to facts about the lottery and presented as objectively as possible.
• The link to the lottery's website forms part of the overall impression under review.

The conditional fine is the practical focal point of the case. KO moves for the injunction to be combined with a fine, citing Postkodlotteriet's 2025 annual report, which shows lottery revenues of just over SEK 3.5 billion. The legal position is characterised by the fact that in autumn 2022 the Riksdag rejected the bill entitled "A strengthened gambling regulation with an adjusted moderation requirement", on the grounds that case law was in the process of becoming established. The Swedish Consumer Agency's general guidelines of 2025 lack binding force, which makes a court ruling of guiding significance — particularly since the case law on short, visual, and algorithmically distributed formats in social media remains sparse.

Consequences

An injunction under penalty of a fine would extend beyond the individual film: the judgment may establish what moderation entails in gambling marketing on Instagram and similar platforms, thereby shaping the advertising design of the entire financial market. For licence holders, this may mean that emotional portrayals, highlighted prize amounts, and time-limited offers must be reconsidered, since violations under Chapter 15, Section 4 of the Gambling Act may be deemed unfair to consumers under the Marketing Act. The fine system entails that any continued violation after the injunction may be punished financially, and the court's willingness to impose substantial amounts — as in the Advea case — makes the sanction tangible for major operators with billion-krona revenues. For KO, the case is a means of filling the gap left by the Riksdag's rejection in 2022.

The Supreme Court has refused leave to appeal, and the Court of Appeal's judgment thereby stands.

In such circumstances, the tenant has the same rights as under a direct letting.

Core issue

Zlatan Ibrahimović and Helena Seger have now definitively lost the rent dispute, as the Supreme Court has refused leave to appeal, meaning the Court of Appeal's judgment stands. As a practical matter, this means that the tenant remains in the apartment with the same legal status as a first-hand tenant — the couple's notice of termination has had no effect. The precise legal question was whether an arrangement involving an intermediary rental company circumvents the security of tenure protections in Chapter 12 of the Swedish Land Code (Jordabalken). Decisive are the rules governing the right to security of tenure and reasonable rent, which the courts held to be intended to protect the tenant.

Legal assessment

• The Court of Appeal concurred with this assessment and additionally found a community of interest between the couple and the rental company in relation to the tenant.
• The tenant relied on established Supreme Court precedent concerning straw-man arrangements and alleged that he had paid excessive rent.
• The arguments advanced by the couple before the Court of Appeal did not alter the outcome; all instances applied the principle that protective provisions cannot be circumvented by contract, consistent with the scheme expressed, for example, in Section 2 of the Act (2012:978) on the Rental of One's Own Dwelling: contractual terms detrimental to the tenant are of no effect.

Consequences

The Ibrahimović/Seger couple have no further ordinary remedies; the tenant remains in residence with first-hand tenant status.

• The property owners continue to bear the risk of an ongoing tenancy on market terms assessed under tenancy legislation, not under private arrangements.
• The judgment confirms the risk inherent in intermediary lettings: courts look through arrangements involving a community of interest between the owner and the intermediary.
• For tenants in similar straw-man arrangements, the final outcome strengthens the ability to assert security of tenure directly against the true owner.

Correction. The article presents the proposition that the tenant "receives the same protection as a first-hand tenant" as a general rule for subtenants, which is inconsistent with the sources – under the Land Code, a subtenant normally has limited rights, including as regards the rent level, and it is only through the front-man assessment specifically that first-hand status can arise. Furthermore, the article gives the impression that a court may in general "declare the front-man arrangement invalid", whereas the Act (1985:277) on Certain Front-Man Arrangements instead empowers the courts, where there is probable cause to assume a front-man arrangement, to order the sale of the property – an entirely different legal instrument than a declaration of invalidity in a tenancy dispute. Finally, the article suggests that the losing party generally must always pay the opposing party's legal costs, but special rules apply in tenancy disputes; under the Act on Private Lettings (2026:772), in a dispute concerning rent under Chapter 2, Section 5, each party bears its own legal costs in the Court of Appeal, so liability for costs is not self-evident but rule-dependent.

The couple was ordered to pay the tenant's litigation costs in both instances, totalling SEK 422,000.

According to the case law on which the action rests, the well-known straw-man judgment of the Supreme Court, such an arrangement cannot be used to circumvent the protective provisions of tenancy law.

Core issue

Zlatan Ibrahimović and Helena Seger now stand without any possibility of changing the outcome of the tenancy dispute; the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, and the Court of Appeal's judgment has acquired legal force. The legal question has been whether a tenant in a straw-man arrangement — where the landlord lets the property through a letting company as intermediary — can claim the same protection as a direct (first-hand) tenant. The starting point is the Land Code (1970:994) and its rules on termination and forfeiture in tenancy law; where the straw-man construction applies, the tenancy relationship is in practice deemed to exist between the property owner and the occupant. For the couple, this means that their 2023 termination of the letting company did not take effect against the tenant in the manner they intended.

Legal assessment

The District Court found that the couple had let the property through an intermediary — a straw-man arrangement — and that the tenant therefore has the same rights as a direct (first-hand) tenant.

• Acting as counsel for the tenant, the Stockholm Region Tenant Association invoked the Supreme Court's straw-man case law, which the courts in the case followed.
• At the same time, a parallel matter is pending before the Rent Tribunal, in which the tenant has been given notice, and which has not yet been decided.
• Should the matter be examined by the Rent Tribunal, the tenant will accordingly benefit from the stronger notice and extension rules that apply to first-hand tenants.

Consequences

For the tenant: the right to remain in the apartment on Östermalm is now confirmed in a final instance, and he is entitled to recover litigation costs of SEK 422,000.

• For Ibrahimović and Seger: no legal remedies remain in the case; the final judgment means they must bear the cost burden and accept a tenant with first-hand status in the property.
• For the market: the judgment makes it more difficult to use straw-man arrangements whereby property owners let through letting companies in order to avoid the protective provisions of tenancy law.
• If the Rent Tribunal follows the final judgment, the tenant's chances of having the notice invalidated increase, according to his counsel Roland Sjölin.
• The next step is the Rent Tribunal's decision on the question of notice.

Under the Act, influence communication means that a natural or legal person has contact with a political decision-maker or a member of a political decision-maker's staff, with the aim of influencing the preparation or decision of a matter before Parliament or the Government, in order to promote a particular interest or outcome.

Core issue

Tobacco lobbyists and other interest organisations will be subject to a registration requirement with the Swedish Companies Registration Office (Kammarkollegiet) as of 1 July 2027, following Parliament's approval of the Act (2026:1459) on Transparency in Political Decision-Making Communications. The core novelty is that the register is narrower than many advocates had sought: the obligation applies only to contacts aimed at influencing the preparation or decision of a matter before Parliament or the Government. The legal question is therefore who, under sections 4 and 2 of the Act (2026:1459), is covered by the notification and reporting obligation, and which contacts fall outside its scope. Decisive are the definition of influence communication in section 2 and the exemptions in section 5.

Legal assessment

Under section 2, influence communication covers situations where a natural or legal person contacts a political decision-maker or the decision-maker's staff in order to promote a particular interest or outcome; assignment-based consultancy is also covered. A legal person is deemed to be conducting the communication when an employee or representative acts in that capacity, pursuant to the second paragraph of section 2. Under section 3, political decision-makers include Members of Parliament and Cabinet Ministers; staff include, among others, political secretaries, employees of the Parliamentary Administration, State Secretaries, political advisers, and inquiry secretaries on committees appointed by the Government.

• The obligation to register applies to legal persons and sole traders conducting influence communication (section 4).
• Exemptions apply under section 5 for public authorities, other states, the EU, intergovernmental organisations, political parties with parliamentary representation, and sole traders for whom such communication is not their principal activity.
• Ordinary official business with authorities and participation in government working groups with documented participation are also exempt (section 5, second paragraph).
• Under section 9, the report must contain the subject matter, the names of decision-makers or the ministry/committee concerned, the manner and approximate extent of contact; the client must be identified.
• If no influence communication has taken place during the period, this must also be reported (section 10).

Criticism from Annika Hirvonen (MP) that contacts preceding the formal process, such as deals like the Tidö or January Agreements, are not covered is well founded – the register captures only matter-specific communication.

Consequences

Tobacco prevention organisations and other interest organisations must register from July 2027 and submit quarterly reports if they contact Members of Parliament, Cabinet Ministers or their staff for matter-specific purposes.

• Contacts aimed at influencing a party's general position or pre-formal-preparation agreement deals remain unregistered, which limits the register's transparency value for organisations such as Tobaksfakta.
• Kammarkollegiet serves as both the registration and supervisory authority; the underlying materials do not indicate any sanctions for failure to report.

Core issue

Ali Namdar faces two parallel criminal proceedings – a Norwegian prosecution and a Swedish detention order – while he is being held in custody in Morocco on the basis of both countries' arrest warrants. The immediate legal situation is the extradition process: the Swedish Prosecution Authority will request his extradition from Morocco, and whichever state obtains him first will determine where the main trial takes place. The precise legal question is whether Morocco will extradite Namdar and, if so, to which of the two requesting states. This will be determined by Morocco's extradition legislation and any applicable bilateral or European agreements. The Swedish proceedings rest on a detention order issued in absentia on 5 December 2025. The suspicions concern incitement to murder, conspiracy to commit murder, incitement to aggravated public endangerment involving destruction, and involving a minor in criminal activity. The Norwegian proceedings have already reached the prosecution stage for several serious offences.

Legal assessment

The Swedish detention in absentia means that the court has found probable cause and that Namdar has no known place of residence.

• Sweden and Norway have entered into an express cooperation agreement to address the cross-border criminality; public prosecutor Anja Perminow Stenersen states that cooperation with Swedish police and prosecutors is close.
• Interpol has issued a so-called "red notice", which enabled the international tracking that led to the arrest in Morocco.
• The question of priority between the requests of Sweden and Norway will be decided by Morocco in the extradition proceedings. The Norwegian prosecutor maintains that Namdar played a central role in the Foxtrot network and organised violent assignments in both Sweden and Norway.

Consequences

Realistic scenario 1: Morocco grants extradition to Sweden; Namdar is detained and transferred, the Swedish criminal proceedings against him commence in earnest, and Norway may then apply for onward extradition.

• Realistic scenario 2: Morocco gives priority to Norway's request; the Norwegian prosecution is tried first and a Swedish main trial is postponed indefinitely.
• Realistic scenario 3: Morocco refuses extradition on grounds of nationality or similar reasons; the consequence is that the proceedings in Sweden and Norway are blocked.
• For the Foxtrot investigations in both countries, the outcome has practical significance: testimony and evidence concerning the organisation of violent assignments are interconnected across borders.
• For Namdar himself, the deprivation of liberty will continue regardless of the outcome, as both countries have issued arrest warrants against him.
• The next step in the proceedings: the Swedish Prosecution Authority will submit a formal extradition request to Morocco.