Legal prism — 2026-09-20

The landlord is obliged to repay what he has overcharged, together with interest thereon under Section 6 of the Interest Act (1975:635) from the date on which the amount was received.

A decision on repayment of rent may not relate to a period earlier than two years before the date of the application.

Core issue

The legal position facing landlords and tenants in Värmland is, in practice, an arbitral procedure: where the parties fail to reach agreement in this year’s rent negotiations, the dispute must be referred to an independent arbitrator, and in the meantime an uncertain rent applies which may later be adjusted retroactively. The opinion article, written by the head of business policy at Fastighetsägarna Värmland, argues that this pattern is a legislative problem rather than a negotiation problem. The precise legal issue is how the negotiation process and its consequences are regulated when negotiations under a negotiation order do not result in a negotiated agreement in time. The decisive rules are found in the Rent Negotiation Act (1978:304), in particular Section 5 on the duty to negotiate, Section 15 on the form and time frame of negotiations, Section 23 on invalidity and repayment, and Section 11 a of the Act (1973:188) on Regional Rent and Tenancy Tribunals concerning the Rent Tribunal’s leave to examine the matter.

Legal assessment

Under Section 5 of the Rent Negotiation Act, a negotiation order imposes an obligation on the landlord, on its own initiative, to negotiate, among other things, rent increases that do not concern an optional supplement and that exceed the price recommended by the parties to the negotiation order. A request for negotiation must be in writing, state the issues in respect of which negotiation is sought, and propose a time and place; a negotiation meeting must be held within three weeks from the date on which the opposing party received the request (Section 15, Act (2022:1658)). Under Section 23, an agreement on a rent increase entered into directly between the landlord and the tenant is invalid if negotiation under the negotiation order has not taken place, or if the agreement concerns an increase beyond what is permitted under a negotiated agreement that has been reached. In such a case, the landlord is obliged to repay the amount overcharged together with interest under Section 6 of the Interest Act (1975:635) from the date on which the amount was received. Further, under Section 11 a of the Act (1973:188), the Rent Tribunal may not examine the landlord’s claim for a higher rent unless negotiation under the negotiation order has taken place concerning the disputed issue, except where the landlord has requested negotiation but has encountered an obstacle through no fault of its own. In the event of a retroactive increase or reduction, Chapter 12, Section 55 e of the Land Code applies, and a decision on repayment of rent may, under the text referred to in Chapter 18 of the Land Code (1970:994), not relate to a period earlier than two years before the date of the application.

Consequences

Tenants in Värmland should expect that a late arbitral decision may result in a retroactive rent increase, with a resulting payment obligation for months that have already passed.

• Landlords who conclude direct rent agreements without completed negotiations risk those agreements being invalid under Section 23 and the increased amounts having to be repaid with interest.
• The Rent Tribunal cannot hear the landlord’s claim for an increase without completed negotiations, which makes the negotiation request under Section 15 a key formal act.
• For the parliamentary parties, the proposal is to give landlords a statutory right to refer a dispute to arbitration without a separate agreement and to limit the negotiation period; this requires an amendment to the Rent Negotiation Act (1978:304).
• Follow-up point: no specific deadline for the arbitral procedure or decision is stated in the material; the nearest concrete step is for the parties to submit the matter to an arbitrator, after which the decision may come long after the beginning of the year. Political consideration of a reform of the law on dispute resolution in collective rent negotiations is expected only if the parliamentary parties take up the proposal, which the material does not date.

Core issue

Svenska Postkodföreningen faces a procedural position as defendant in a marketing case before the Patent and Market Court, where the Swedish Consumer Ombudsman (KO) seeks a prohibition, subject to a conditional fine, against a specific Instagram advertisement. The new development is that the application for summons has been filed; the outcome will turn on whether the video featuring falling prize cheques, “101 million” in gold-coloured text, and a time-limited half-price offer breaches the requirement of moderation. The legal issue is how the requirement of moderation in Chapter 15, Section 1 of the Gambling Act (2018:1138), applicable to the marketing of gambling to consumers, is to be interpreted in social media. Under Chapter 15, Section 4 of the Gambling Act, marketing that contravenes Section 1 is deemed unfair to consumers for the purposes of Sections 5, 23 and 26 of the Marketing Practices Act (2008:486), which is the rule infringement on which KO bases its claim. According to KO, the Gambling Act requires information to be limited to factual information about the lottery and presented as objectively as possible.

Legal assessment

KO’s objection is twofold and must be assessed cumulatively as part of an overall evaluation:

• The video presents the lottery as socially attractive, something in which everyone ought to participate.
• The offer with a final purchase date creates the impression that there is urgency to buy a ticket.
• If the overall assessment supports KO’s position, the marketing is not moderate and must be prohibited. KO links the issue of the conditional fine to Postkodlotteriet’s 2025 annual report, which shows lottery revenue of just over SEK 3.5 billion; according to the authority, this supports a relatively high fine. By comparison, in KO’s case against the credit intermediary Advea, the Patent and Market Court attached an interim conditional fine totalling SEK 3.5 million to its decision, demonstrating the court’s willingness to set meaningful levels. The state of the law is thin in terms of precedent: in autumn 2022, the Riksdag rejected the proposal in the bill “A Strengthened Gambling Regulation” concerning an adjusted moderation requirement, on the basis that case law was in the process of being established. The Swedish Consumer Agency’s 2025 general guidelines on the marketing of gambling are only guidelines and carry less weight than a court judgment. A ruling by the Patent and Market Court would therefore have an impact far beyond the individual advertiser, as in the case where a law firm was found liable for misleading job advertisements.

Consequences

For Postkodlotteriet, what is at stake is a prohibition on the advertisement in question, coupled with a conditional fine at a level to be set by the court; according to KO’s claim, the level of the fine should be guided by the billion-krona revenues.

• For the gambling market as a whole, a judgment could establish what moderation means for short, visual and algorithmically distributed formats on social media, where precedent has so far been limited.
• For KO, a successful claim would strengthen its ability to act against other licence holders without new legislation, since the Riksdag has already rejected the political route.
• Postkodlotteriet must now respond to KO’s objections before the court.

Core issue

The tenant emerges as the ultimate prevailing party: following the Supreme Court’s refusal to grant leave to appeal, the Court of Appeal’s judgment stands, allowing him to remain in possession with the rights of a direct tenant. For Ibrahimovic and Seger, the proceedings are therefore concluded: their termination of the lease has not taken effect and can no longer be pursued. The precise legal issue was whether a nominee arrangement, under which the property owners let the property through a rental company with which they shared a community of interests, could be disregarded in favour of the tenant. The decisive provisions are found in Chapter 12 of the Land Code, in particular the rules on security of tenure and reasonable rent that apply to direct lettings. The courts’ approach is that where the legal relationship is used to circumvent these tenant-protective provisions, the tenant is treated as if the agreement had been concluded directly with the property owners. The District Court put it as follows: “it may be presumed that the legal relationship has been used to circumvent provisions of tenancy legislation that are intended for the benefit of N.N.”

Legal assessment

The District Court found that the tenant has “the same rights in relation to Zlatan and Helena Seger as he would have had if they had granted the tenancy directly to him”.

• The Court of Appeal agreed and found a community of interests between the couple and the rental company in relation to the tenant.
• The Court of Appeal considered that the arrangement circumvented legislation on the right to security of tenure and reasonable rent; the couple’s submissions on that point did not alter the assessment.
• The Supreme Court has now decided not to grant leave to appeal, meaning that the Court of Appeal’s judgment has become final.

Consequences

The tenant may remain in occupation with the same rights as a direct tenant, including security of tenure and protection against excessive rent.

• Ibrahimovic and Seger must bear their own litigation costs and cannot have the tenant evicted on the basis of the termination in question.
• Landlords using intermediary companies for similar purposes should expect courts to pierce such arrangements where a community of interests can be shown.

Correction. The article presents counsel’s assertion that the judgment means the tenant “receives the same protection as a first-hand tenant” as though this were a general rule for subtenants in nominee arrangements. That is misleading: the protection does not arise from the person’s status as a subtenant, but from the nominee construction, and the statutory text expressly excludes application where the apartment has been sublet in accordance with a block-letting permit or a block-letting agreement. A more accurate formulation would be that the District Court and the Court of Appeal found that this particular arrangement did not constitute a valid block-letting relationship triggering the exception, and that the judgment therefore cannot be generalised to all tenants of letting companies.

the couple were ordered to reimburse the tenant’s litigation costs in the total amount of SEK 422,000.

Because the courts recognised the tenant as having direct tenancy status, these protective rules apply in full against the couple.

Core issue

Zlatan Ibrahimovic and Helena Seger are the finally unsuccessful parties in the tenancy dispute concerning the apartment in Östermalm, because the Supreme Court did not grant leave to appeal and the Court of Appeal’s judgment has therefore acquired legal force. The legal position now facing the couple is, first, a liability to pay SEK 422,000 in litigation costs and, second, a significantly weakened position in the ongoing proceedings before the Rent Tribunal, where the tenant has been given notice of termination. The central legal issue determined was whether a tenant who rented through an intermediary in a nominee arrangement has the same rights as a direct tenant. The District Court and the Court of Appeal found that the couple had let the apartment through an intermediary and had thereby attempted to circumvent the tenancy legislation. The relevant provisions of the Swedish Land Code (1970:994), in particular those governing lease terms, termination and the tenant’s security of tenure, determine the issue; the much-discussed nominee judgment from the Supreme Court is the precedent relied on by the tenant. Under the termination rules in the Land Code, notice terminating a tenancy agreement of indefinite duration must observe a specified notice period (at the end of a calendar month, no earlier than three months after notice is given), and termination against the tenant may occur only on the basis of the statutory grounds for forfeiture.

Legal assessment

The District Court found that the arrangement through a nominee or intermediary (the letting company) was not acceptable, and that the tenant should therefore be equated with a direct tenant.

• The Supreme Court did not examine the case on the merits, as leave to appeal was refused, meaning that the Court of Appeal’s judgment is final.
• The tenant association’s counsel, Roland Sjölin, states that the judgment means the tenant receives the same protection as a direct tenant, strengthening his position before the Rent Tribunal. The parallel proceedings before the Rent Tribunal, in which the tenant has been given notice of termination, have not yet been determined. In the Rent Tribunal, extensions of tenancy agreements and tenancy terms are examined under the Land Code (Sections 45–52 and 53–55 f), provisions which, under the Residential Hire-Purchase Act (2026:843), apply specifically in certain cases. The tenant’s termination status must therefore now be assessed in light of the fact that he has been recognised as having direct tenancy rights. The role of the letting company is legally decisive: it is that arrangement, landlord–nominee–tenant, which the courts assessed as a circumvention of the protective rules of tenancy law. The judgment establishes that this structure does not insulate the property owner, regardless of when in the chain that owner took possession; the Enforcement Code (1981:774) makes clear that a tenancy agreement is binding on the purchaser if notice of termination is not given within one month of taking possession.

Consequences

The couple must pay SEK 422,000 in litigation costs to the tenant; the amount has been finally determined.

• The tenant has secured the right to remain in occupation with direct tenancy rights, meaning that the couple cannot evict him unless the forfeiture conditions in the Land Code are satisfied.
• Before the Rent Tribunal, the termination will now be assessed on the basis of the rules applicable to direct tenancies; counsel Sjölin estimates that the tenant’s prospects of success have increased substantially.
• For other property owners using nominee arrangements, the judgment signals that such structures may give tenants full security of tenure, with the resulting risk of liability for the opposing party’s litigation costs.

Core issue

Companies and business operators engaging in tobacco lobbying and other advocacy communications directed at the Riksdag and the Government are expected, from 1 July 2027, to be subject to a notification obligation and a recurring reporting obligation to Kammarkollegiet. The Riksdag’s decision means that contacts intended to influence the preparation or determination of a matter can no longer take place without leaving a trace in a public register. The central legal question for the organisations concerned is whether their contacts fall within the definition of advocacy communication under Act (2026:1459) on transparency in communications intended to influence political decisions, and whether any of the exemptions from the notification obligation in Section 5 of the Act apply. The definition in Section 2 covers contact with a political decision-maker or their staff for the purpose of influencing the preparation or determination of a matter before the Riksdag or the Government in order to promote a particular interest or outcome, as well as providing advice or support, on assignment, to a person having such contact.

Legal assessment

Legal persons and sole traders engaging in advocacy communication are subject to registration requirements (Section 4); a natural person’s contact is attributed to a legal person if the person is a representative or employee and acts in that capacity (Section 2).

• Exemptions under Section 5 apply, inter alia, to sole traders whose principal business is not communication, public authorities, other states and the EU, and political parties with mandates or their affiliated organisations.
• The obligation does not apply to customary contacts within administrative matters or participation in government-appointed working groups and inquiries where the documentation is public (Section 5, second paragraph).
• For each subject, the report must include the subject area, the names of the relevant decision-makers or ministry/unit/committee, the principal means and extent of contact, and the client where the contact was made on assignment — Section 9.
• If no advocacy communication has been conducted during the period, this must also be reported (Section 10), which entails an ongoing reporting obligation even for inactive periods.
• The purpose of the Act is to safeguard public transparency (Section 1); Kammarkollegiet is both the registration body and the supervisory authority. The material does not specify sanctions such as fines or penalty payments, and no case law on the subject is reported.

Consequences

From July 2027, the tobacco industry and other interest organisations targeting members of the Riksdag or government ministers under Section 3 will have their points of contact documented in a register that may provide public health organisations with material for public debate.

• Lobbying directed at preliminary party negotiations, such as the Tidö Agreement, is not covered because such contacts do not concern the preparation or determination of a matter before the Riksdag or the Government — Annika Hirvonen’s (Green Party) criticism calling for a comprehensive register was not accepted.
• From the entry into force of the Act, organisations must establish procedures to document contacts, means of contact and clients in time for the first reporting period.