Legal prism — 2026-09-22

An order for repayment of rent may not relate to a period more than two years before the date of the application.

A rent agreement concluded directly between the landlord and the tenant is invalid under Section 23 if negotiation under the negotiation procedure has not taken place.

Core issue

After a year without agreement, the parties in Värmland are no longer awaiting negotiation but dispute resolution: the rent issue will ultimately be determined by an arbitrator or the Rent Tribunal, not by the parties themselves. The legal position resulting from the protracted process is governed by the Rent Negotiation Act (1978:304) and proceedings before the Rent Tribunal under the Act (1973:188) on Regional Rent and Tenancies Tribunals. The crux of the matter is that the legislature has not imposed any time limit requiring a decision; the procedure permits the rent to remain undetermined for much of the year. The precise legal issue is when and to what extent a collectively negotiated rent increase may be applied to tenants. The governing provisions are Section 5 of the Rent Negotiation Act (the obligation to negotiate rent increases), Section 23 of the same Act (invalidity of agreements concluded without, or beyond the scope of, negotiation), and Chapter 12, Sections 55-55e of the Swedish Land Code (the Rent Tribunal’s review of reasonable rent, including retroactive adjustment under Section 55e, fifth to eighth paragraphs). Section 15 of the Rent Negotiation Act sets out the form of negotiation: a written request and a meeting within three weeks.

Legal assessment

The landlord is obliged, on its own initiative, to negotiate an increase under Section 5, first paragraph, item 1 of the Rent Negotiation Act, unless the increase concerns an optional add-on and is below the recommended price.

• A request for negotiation must be in writing, state the issues and propose a time and place, and a meeting must be held within three weeks under Section 15 (Act (2022:1658)).
• The Rent Tribunal may not examine the landlord’s claim for a higher rent if the required negotiation has not taken place, under Section 11a of the Act (1973:188), except where negotiation has been requested but was prevented by an obstacle not attributable to the landlord.
• Where the Rent Tribunal nevertheless reviews the rent, Chapter 12, Sections 54-55e of the Land Code apply; an order for repayment of rent may not relate to a period more than two years before the application under the rules in Chapter 12, Section 55, and in the event of a retroactive increase or reduction, Section 55e, fifth to eighth paragraphs, applies.
• The Rent Tribunal also hears disputes concerning rent terms under Sections 22-23 of the Rent Negotiation Act and repayment obligations under Section 23 (item 2a in the jurisdictional provision of the Act on Regional Rent and Tenancies Tribunals).
• The material contains no case law; no precedent can therefore be invoked.
• The parties may derogate from Section 15 by written agreement, which in practice constitutes the only time-governing rules; the material discloses no mandatory bar to protracted negotiations.

Consequences

For tenants: continued uncertainty as to rent during the negotiation period and the risk that a later decision will be enforced retroactively under Chapter 12, Section 55e of the Land Code, resulting in a lump-sum payment covering several months’ difference in arrears.

• For property owners: operating levels and investments must be planned without a known revenue level, and any unilateral increase implemented prematurely risks being declared invalid, with an obligation to repay together with interest under Section 23.
• For the system: where negotiations reach an impasse, arbitration or an application to the Rent Tribunal remains; the author of the opinion article calls for legislative amendment, namely referral to an arbitrator without a separate agreement and a limited negotiation period.
• The next step in the individual case is for one of the parties to request negotiation in writing under Section 15 or subsequently apply to the Rent Tribunal for determination of the rent.

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

As a benchmark, the authority refers to the court’s decision in the Consumer Ombudsman’s case against the credit intermediary Advea, where an interim conditional fine totalling SEK 3.5 million was attached to the order.

Core issue

Postkodlotteriet must now respond to a statement of claim in which the Consumer Ombudsman seeks a prohibition on marketing, coupled with a conditional fine, calibrated against lottery revenues of just over SEK 3.5 billion according to the 2025 annual report. Svenska Postkodföreningen therefore faces proceedings before the Patent and Market Court, where a single Instagram advertisement will determine whether the marketing was moderate within the meaning of the Gambling Act. The precise legal issue is whether the video featuring raining prize cheques, the statement of SEK 101 million in gold-coloured text, and a time-limited half-price offer contravenes the moderation requirement in Chapter 15, Section 1 of the Gambling Act (2018:1138). The Gambling Act’s originally proposed adjusted moderation requirement was rejected by the Riksdag in autumn 2022, on the ground that case law had not yet been established, and the gap is now, in practice, to be filled by the court.

Legal assessment

The Consumer Ombudsman’s objection is twofold and is based on an overall assessment of the video.

• According to the Consumer Ombudsman, the video presented the lottery as socially attractive, something in which everyone ought to participate.
• The offer with a final purchase date allegedly created the impression that there was urgency to buy a ticket.
• According to the Consumer Ombudsman, the Gambling Act requires information to be limited to facts about the lottery and presented as objectively as possible.
• The video also contained a link through to the lottery’s website, as stated in the statement of claim. Postkodlotteriet will have to respond to the Consumer Ombudsman’s objections before the court. The Consumer Ombudsman seeks a prohibition coupled with a conditional fine but has not disclosed any amount. The Swedish Consumer Agency’s 2025 general guidelines on gambling marketing are only guidelines, meaning that a court ruling would carry greater weight.

Consequences

For Postkodlotteriet, what is at stake is a prohibition on continuing equivalent marketing, coupled with a conditional fine whose level should reasonably be proportionate to its billion-krona revenues.

• For the gambling industry, a ruling would be an important precedent clarifying the moderation requirement in social media, where formats are short, visual and algorithmically distributed.
• For the Consumer Ombudsman, the case is expressly about clarifying what the Gambling Act’s moderation requirement entails, not merely about the individual video.
• The case may have an impact far beyond the individual advertiser, as previous marketing cases with broader effects have done.

The consequence is that the tenant has the same rights vis-à-vis Ibrahimović and Seger as if they had granted the tenancy directly to him.

The Supreme Court’s decision not to grant leave to appeal does not constitute a substantive review, but it makes the Court of Appeal’s judgment binding between the parties.

Core issue

Zlatan Ibrahimović and Helena Seger have now definitively lost the tenancy dispute, as the Supreme Court has refused them leave to appeal. The Court of Appeal’s judgment therefore stands as final, and the tenant may remain in the apartment with the same rights as a direct tenant. The legal position now facing the property owners is that they must accept a tenancy relationship they sought to terminate: the termination of the contract does not have the intended effect. The precise legal issue has been whether an arrangement involving a letting company as an intermediary may be used to circumvent the protective rules of tenancy legislation. The decisive provisions are those in Chapter 12 of the Swedish Land Code concerning security of tenure and reasonable rent, which are intended for the benefit of the tenant. The District Court and the Court of Appeal found that, where the legal relationship has been used to circumvent those provisions, the tenant is to have the same position as if the tenancy had been granted directly to him.

Legal assessment

The Stockholm District Court found that it “may be assumed that the legal relationship has been used to circumvent provisions of tenancy legislation that are for the benefit of N.N.”

• The Court of Appeal shared that assessment and further found a commonality of interests between the couple and the letting company in relation to the tenant.
• The tenant relied on Supreme Court case law and argued that he had paid excessive rent under an alleged nominee arrangement benefiting the property owner.
• According to the court, the matters relied upon by the couple in the Court of Appeal did not alter the assessment.

In this case, the courts applied the principle prohibiting circumvention of tenancy legislation.

Consequences

The tenant may remain in the apartment with the same rights as a direct tenant, including the security of tenure and rent protection provided under Chapter 12 of the Swedish Land Code.

• Ibrahimović and Seger cannot terminate the tenant’s rights by terminating the contract with the letting company.
• For property owners who let through intermediaries, the judgment sends a clear signal: courts may look through nominee arrangements and treat the tenant as a direct tenant.
• For tenants in comparable situations, the outcome strengthens the possibility of invoking the circumvention principle and claiming full protection under tenancy law.

Correction. The article presents the position as though a subtenant in a sham intermediary arrangement generally “receives the same protection as a direct tenant”, without mentioning the basic premise of the legislation: that subletting requires the landlord’s consent, and that subletting without consent normally constitutes forfeiture of the tenancy under the Private Lettings Act 2026:772, with the grounds for termination set out there. The right to remain in occupation on direct-tenancy terms therefore does not operate as an independent rule for subtenants, but as a response to the landlord having itself constructed the intermediary arrangement in order to circumvent the law. Further, the statement that the landlord “must pay the tenant’s litigation costs in the District Court and Court of Appeal” is unclear in light of the cited rule, which proceeds on the basis that each party bears its own litigation costs in the Court of Appeal. The correct position is that costs in this dispute were awarded against the couple on the basis of the special assessment applied in tenancy disputes, not as a general rule that the landlord always pays the tenant’s costs.

They are liable to pay the tenant’s litigation costs in the District Court and the Court of Appeal, totaling SEK 422,000.

The District Court and the Court of Appeal found that the couple had attempted, through a nominee, to circumvent tenancy law, and that the tenant therefore receives the same protection as a direct tenant.

Core issue

The Ibrahimovic/Seger couple now faces a final defeat in the main dispute: the Court of Appeal’s judgment becomes final, and the tenant is entitled to remain in the apartment with the same rights as a direct tenant. The Supreme Court did not grant leave to appeal, which is the procedural turning point that makes the Court of Appeal’s judgment binding. However, a parallel proceeding remains pending before the Rent Tribunal, where the tenant has been given notice and the matter has not yet been decided. The precise legal issue was whether letting through an intermediary company — a nominee arrangement — results in the subtenant acquiring direct-tenant status. This is supported by a previous nominee judgment of the Supreme Court, which the tenant invoked in the statement of claim. The regulatory framework is based on the Land Code (1970:994), Chapter 12 of which governs tenancy agreements and termination, and where Section 3 provides that tenancy agreements apply for an indefinite term unless otherwise follows from the second paragraph.

Legal assessment

As landlords, the couple has lost the right to maintain that the tenant is merely a subtenant with limited protection.

• Under the judgment, the tenant is entitled to remain in the apartment with the rights of a direct tenant, which limits the couple’s ability to terminate the agreement.
• The follow-up issue concerns the termination proceedings before the Rent Tribunal, where the validity of the notice given to the tenant is being assessed.
• Under Chapter 12, Sections 45–52 of the Land Code, a tenant may in certain circumstances request an extension of the agreement following termination, which is relevant in the Rent Tribunal proceedings.
• The Supreme Court’s refusal to grant leave to appeal does not constitute a review of the merits at the highest instance; the Court of Appeal’s application of the nominee precedent therefore becomes legally decisive for the parties.

Consequences

The tenant can realistically remain in the apartment, as the Court of Appeal’s judgment is now final and confers direct-tenancy protection.

• For the couple, this entails a financial burden: SEK 422,000 in litigation costs, as well as continuing costs for the dispute before the Rent Tribunal.
• For the rental market in Östermalm, the judgment signals that nominee arrangements do not shield landlords from the protective rules of tenancy law.
• For the Swedish Union of Tenants and other subtenants, the judgment strengthens the prospects of asserting direct-tenant status in nominee arrangements.
• Before the Rent Tribunal, the tenant’s chances of having the termination declared invalid increase, according to counsel’s own assessment.

The report must be submitted to Kammarkollegiet no later than 1 June for the period January-April, no later than 1 October for the period May-August, and no later than 1 February for the period September-December.

In the Act, influence communication means that a natural or legal person has contact with a political decision-maker or a staff member of a political decision-maker 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.

Core issue

The Riksdag’s decision means that tobacco lobbyists and other interest organisations must, from 1 July 2027, register with Kammarkollegiet and thereafter regularly report their contacts with political decision-makers. The Act (2026:1459) on transparency in communications intended to influence political decisions enters into force on 2027-07-01. The legal question is who is subject to the registration and reporting obligations and in respect of which contacts. Under Section 2, influence communication means that a natural or legal person has contact with a political decision-maker or that person’s staff member 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. The Act applies to legal persons and sole traders where the contact person is a representative or employee and acts in that capacity. The rules determining the scope are:

• Section 4: legal persons and sole traders that engage in influence communication must notify themselves for registration.
• Section 3: political decision-makers are members of the Riksdag and government ministers; staff members include, among others, political secretaries, employees of the Riksdag Administration, and state secretaries and political advisers in the Government Offices.
• Section 5: exemptions apply, among other things, to customary contacts in administrative authority matters, participation in government-appointed working groups where participation is documented, contacts with international organisations, and political parties holding mandates or their affiliated organisations.

Legal assessment

Tobaksfakta and similar actors seeking to influence decisions by the Riksdag or the Government fall within the obligation, provided that they are legal persons or sole traders and that the influence communication forms part of their activities. Reporting is regulated by Section 8. The content of the report follows from Section 9:

• the subjects of the influence communication during the period;
• the names of the political decision-makers with whom contacts took place, or information on the ministry, unit or committee in the case of contacts with staff members;
• the principal means of maintaining contact and the approximate extent of the contacts. According to the sources, it must also be stated whether the communication took place on behalf of another person, with details of the client. A person who has only provided advice or support to another is not required to provide the information referred to in Section 9, and a person who has not engaged in any influence communication during the period must state this in the report under Section 10. The criticism from Annika Hirvonen (Green Party) concerned the threshold of the register: the Act captures only contacts concerning the preparation or determination of a specific matter, not lobbying aimed at getting issues included in party agreements such as the Tidö Agreement or the January Agreement. Such pre-formal lobbying falls outside the definition in Section 2 and is therefore not covered. The registration obligation is supplemented by the existing financial register under Act (1996:810). The material contains no case law on the new Act, which has not yet entered into force.

Consequences

For the tobacco industry and prevention actors: contacts with members of the Riksdag, government ministers or their staff in matters before the Riksdag or the Government will be publicly reported through Kammarkollegiet.

• For political appointees and employees (state secretaries, political advisers, Riksdag employees): contacts with registered lobbyists will be traceable with identification by name under Section 9.
• Borderline cases remain: party negotiations and agreements outside formal preparatory processes are not covered, which was the Green Party’s main objection to the inquiry proposal.
• Kammarkollegiet becomes both the registration authority and the supervisory authority; the material does not identify any penalty provisions for failure to register or report.
• For the public and organisations such as Tobaksfakta, the Act provides a tool to show which tobacco interests have had contact with decision-makers in specific matters. Follow-up: the Act enters into force on 2027-07-01.

Core issue

Members of the Riksdag in Sweden are not required to hold Swedish citizenship; however, a future minister must be a Swedish citizen under Chapter 6, Article 2 of the Instrument of Government. This means that Mohamed Abdukardir Ali, who is a newly naturalized citizen, may remain in the Riksdag regardless of the outcome of the investigation. The legal situation actually ahead involves two separate tracks: a possible criminal investigation into electoral fraud in Dalarna and a political assessment in the government formation process, where the Left Party’s place in a governing arrangement is already contested. The precise legal issue is partly whether electoral fraud has been committed and by whom, and partly how the suspicions affect the Speaker’s proposal in the procedure for electing a Prime Minister. Electoral fraud is not regulated in the sources provided, and the materials contain no information that Ali is suspected of any offence. Government formation is governed by Chapter 6, Articles 4–6 of the Instrument of Government: the Speaker convenes consultations, submits a proposal, and the Riksdag considers the proposal within four days without committee preparation. A proposal is rejected if more than half of the members vote against it; after four rejected proposals, the procedure is discontinued and an extraordinary election may be called within three months pursuant to Article 5.

Legal assessment

Application of Chapter 6, Article 4 of the Instrument of Government: the Speaker’s proposal is considered by vote; a negative majority of more than half rejects the proposal.

• Under Chapter 6, Article 3 of the Instrument of Government, a newly elected Riksdag must, no later than two weeks after convening, test the Prime Minister’s support by vote; if more than half vote no, the Prime Minister is dismissed.
• Ali is not formally barred by the duration of his party membership or by the number of votes; 648 personal votes from ninth place on the list is an electoral-technical issue, not a legal eligibility issue, insofar as the materials support that conclusion.
• The statements by the Centre Party and the Social Democrats are political signals; the materials identify no legal rule requiring the Social Democrats to exclude the Left Party, but Chapter 6, Article 4 of the Instrument of Government gives the Speaker scope to weigh political acceptability when making a proposal.
• No case law on electoral fraud is included in the sources provided; the investigation in Dalarna follows the ordinary criminal investigation procedure, the details of which are not set out in the materials.
• According to the information provided, Ali does not have the status of a suspect; accordingly, he cannot be subjected to individual coercive measures on the basis of the available information.

Consequences

Criminal-law track: if electoral fraud can be proven in Dalarna, charges may be brought; the materials do not state sanction levels, and no persons are currently suspected.

• Political track for the Left Party: the party’s fitness for government is being questioned by both the Centre Party and the Social Democrats; if Magdalena Andersson forms a government, dependence on support from the Left Party may become practically more difficult, but no legal bar to the Left Party being in government is apparent beyond the citizenship requirement in Chapter 6, Article 2 of the Instrument of Government.
• For Ali personally: the Riksdag mandate remains in place for the time being; nothing in the materials supports mandatory resignation or invalidation of his election.
• The following table summarizes three different procedures addressed:

• The next procedural step is that the Left Party has promised to return with a statement or comment. The criminal investigation initiated in Dalarna is expected to show whether anyone should be formally designated as a suspect.

Core issue

The 65 motorists are not facing fines in the criminal-law sense, but claims for control charges under private-law legislation. The news item concerns parking on grassland in Stadsparken during J-Södra’s free-admission match, where two parking attendants issued charges totaling nearly SEK 70,000. The legal position is governed by the Act (1984:318) on Control Charges for Unlawful Parking, which entitles the landowner to impose a charge where a vehicle has been parked in breach of prohibitions or conditions decided by the landowner, pursuant to Section 1. The precise legal issue is whether the charge could be imposed at all: this requires that the parking prohibition was clearly announced by signage with road signs at the site, pursuant to Section 3, and that the charge does not exceed the municipality’s illegal-parking fee, pursuant to Section 4.

Legal assessment

The amount of the control charge may not exceed the illegal-parking fee determined within the municipality under the Act (1976:206) on Illegal-Parking Fees; the municipality may set the amount at no less than SEK 75 and no more than SEK 1,300 under Section 2a of the Ordinance (1976:1128) on Illegal-Parking Fees. The SEK 1,050 charged per vehicle falls within this ceiling, provided that the municipality has set a corresponding amount for the relevant type of violation in the part of the municipality where the parking occurred. The following obligations and conditions also apply:

• The landowner must issue a payment notice, delivered to the driver or affixed to the vehicle, pursuant to Section 8.
• The driver and owner are jointly and severally liable for payment, pursuant to Section 7; the owner is not liable if the vehicle was likely taken from him through a criminal offence.
• The landowner is responsible for ensuring that the parking attendants carrying out enforcement have appropriate training, pursuant to Section 12; municipal enforcement requires a decision under the Act (1987:24) on Municipal Parking Enforcement, with notification to the Swedish Police Authority pursuant to Section 3.
• Under Section 10 of the Road Signs Ordinance (2007:90), road signs used for the announcement must be supplemented by an additional panel stating the landowner’s name and telephone number.
• If, having regard to the circumstances, it would appear manifestly unreasonable to impose the charge, it may not be imposed, pursuant to Section 10. The question whether the signage on the grass areas in Stadsparken was sufficient is therefore central: if there was no prohibition marked by road signs at the site, the charges were improperly imposed.

Consequences

If someone has been finally convicted for the act or has accepted a summary penalty order, no control charge may be imposed and any charge paid must be refunded, pursuant to Section 11.

• For the motorists, the practical course is to contest the charge and rely on deficient signage or unreasonableness under Section 10; for the municipality, the issue is how event parking will be organized and signposted in the future.