Correction. The article's claims need to be refined on three points. First, the claim that the regulatory framework makes it possible to prolong negotiations "without any real consequences" is incomplete: the Land Code prescribes concrete sanctions for breach of the landlord's obligations, including that a notice given in default is without effect, and Section 11 a limits the demands the landlord may make without negotiation. Second, the claim that "in the end only" an independent arbitrator remains is partly misleading: under Section 24, both the landlord and the tenant have the right to apply to the Rent Tribunal for a modification of the rent terms, so the Rent Tribunal is a fully available primary route, while arbitration under Section 23 a presupposes that the parties have not agreed otherwise. Third, the claim about retroactive rent increases contradicts the source: under the Land Code's rule, the higher rent may take effect only after the day stated as the last day to object to the increase – late negotiation decisions therefore do not in themselves provide a legal basis for the rent being implemented retroactively, but rather for a period during which the previous rent continues to apply.
Where the negotiation has concluded without agreement, an application by a party for adjustment is available under Section 24; the same applies where the negotiation has been prevented by circumstances not attributable to the applicant.
Decisions under the Rent Negotiation Act are appealable to the Svea Court of Appeal within three weeks pursuant to Section 31.
Following a rent negotiation that does not result in an agreement, either the landlord or the tenant may apply to the Rent Tribunal for an adjustment of the rent terms under Section 24 of the Rent Negotiation Act (1978:304). This is where the Värmland cases will in practice end up, since the article describes negotiations that have reached deadlock, with arbitration as the next step. The precise legal question then becomes what rent shall apply and from what date, examined under the Tribunal's substantive rent review, governed inter alia by Chapter 12, Sections 53, 54 and 55–55 e of the Land Code (Jordabalken). The procedure is governed by the Act (1973:188) on Agricultural Lease Boards and Rent Tribunals, which is the procedural statute referred to in Section 30 of the Rent Negotiation Act.
A negotiation arrangement entails an obligation to negotiate, on one's own initiative, rent increases that do not relate to optional additions and do not exceed the recommended price, pursuant to Section 5 of the Rent Negotiation Act.
For the tenants, the current situation entails uncertainty throughout the entire negotiation period plus the risk of retroactive increases once the Rent Tribunal or the arbitrator decides. For the property owners, it entails unclear revenue for large parts of the year, which, according to the article, complicates planning of operations, maintenance and investments. Relative development without legislative change: the same pattern recurs annually, and dispute resolution through arbitration becomes the system's normal state rather than the exception. In the longer term, the uncertainty risks affecting housing construction according to the article's assessment, but that is a political and economic conclusion, not a legal consequence. The next concrete step for the parties in Värmland is for one of them to apply to the Rent Tribunal for adjustment of the rent terms under Section 24 of the Rent Negotiation Act, or for the parties, jointly or unilaterally, to initiate arbitration where such is contractually provided for.
The provision requires moderation in the marketing of gambling to consumers and prohibits targeting persons under 18 years of age.
KO's case against the credit broker Advea, in which the Patent and Market Court linked an interim penalty payment totalling SEK 3.5 million to its decision.
Postkodlotteriet now awaits a merits ruling from the Patent and Market Court, in which a single Instagram advertisement may have consequences for the entire gambling industry's social media marketing. The case concerns a film featuring winning cheques over a residential neighbourhood, SEK 101 million in gold-coloured text, and a time-limited half-price offer. The legal question is whether the marketing violates the moderation requirement in Chapter 15, Section 1 of the Gambling Act (2018:1138). The Swedish Consumer Agency's (KO) factual characterization rests on the argument that, under the Gambling Act, information must be limited to facts about the lottery and presented as objectively as possible. The authority considers that the portrayal of the lottery as socially attractive and the sense of urgency created by the time-limited offer render the marketing immoderate on an overall assessment.
Chapter 15, Section 1 of the Gambling Act requires moderation; the assessment is made through an overall evaluation of the presentation, content, and design on the medium, pursuant to KOVFS 2025:2, section 2.1.
This shows that the court is willing to impose substantial penalties in KO cases.
For Postkodlotteriet, an injunction against the advertisement in question is at stake, combined with a penalty payment whose level will likely be scaled against the billion-krona revenues.
Correction. The news report presents the rule as meaning that the tenant, in all cases of circumvention, has "the same rights vis-à-vis the property owners as if the tenancy had been granted directly". This is incomplete: under Chapter 12, Section 4 of the Land Code, it is additionally required that there be a community of interest between the property owner and the grantor, and that the cumulative circumstances – here the overletting and the purpose of the arrangement – support the conclusion that the legal relationship has been exploited to circumvent the tenant's statutory benefits. Circumvention alone, without a community of interest, would not trigger the rule; correctly formulated, both conditions must be stated together.
The tenant emerges as the final winner: since the Supreme Court refuses leave to appeal, the Court of Appeal's judgment acquires legal force, and he may remain in the premises with the same rights as a direct (first-hand) tenant. For Ibrahimovic and Seger, this means that the notice of termination they have served is effectively without effect – they must accept the tenant remaining in possession, protected by security of tenure and entitled to a fair rent. The precise legal question was whether an arrangement in which the lease is conveyed via a rental company with a community of interests with the property owner can be enforced, or whether the tenant should be treated as if the lease had been granted to him directly. The decisive provisions are Chapter 12 of the Land Code (Jordabalken) on security of tenure and fair rent, together with the Act (1985:277) on Certain Straw-Man Arrangements, which regulates when an arrangement is to be regarded as a straw-man arrangement. The courts applied the principle that agreements exploited in order to circumvent the protective provisions of tenancy legislation shall not operate to the tenant's detriment.
The District Court found that "it may be assumed that the legal relationship has been exploited in order to circumvent provisions of tenancy legislation that are favourable to N.N." In such circumstances, the tenant has the same rights vis-à-vis Ibrahimovic and Seger as if they had granted the lease to him directly. The Court of Appeal adopted the same line and found a community of interests between the couple and the rental company in relation to the tenant. The tenant asserted that he had paid an over-market rent within the framework of a straw-man arrangement that benefited the property owner, relying on Supreme Court precedent. The arguments advanced by the couple before the Court of Appeal did not alter that assessment.
The tenant may remain in the apartment with the rights of a direct (first-hand) tenant, including security of tenure under Chapter 12 of the Land Code.
Whether a subtenant in a sham/straw-man arrangement – where the property owner lets the premises through an intermediate letting company – can invoke the same strong security of tenure as a direct (first-hand) tenant, and whether the Supreme Court would examine this issue upon grant of leave to appeal. [TEISINIS_PAGRUNDAS]: The underlying material contains no specific statutory provision on sham arrangements, so the reasoning must rest on a general principle of law: the line established by the Supreme Court (the so-called sham-letting judgment relied on in the case) that where a landlord deliberately interposes an intermediate company in order to circumvent the protective provisions of the Tenancy Act, the real tenant is to be treated as equivalent to a first-hand tenant with full security of tenure under the tenancy provisions of the Land Code. The question of leave to appeal, by contrast, is governed by a specific rule: the Supreme Court grants leave to appeal only if the case is of importance as a precedent or if leave is otherwise justified, and the Supreme Court here found – without giving reasons on the merits – that no such grounds existed.
What case law says: The chain of courts is here uniform in favour of the tenant: the Stockholm District Court held that the letting through an intermediate company constituted a sham arrangement intended to circumvent the Tenancy Act, the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment, and the Supreme Court's refusal to grant leave to appeal renders the assessment final without the legal position having been re-examined. This means that the line of precedent from the sham-letting judgment has now been reinforced through its application in a concrete case against a private property owner, even though the Supreme Court has not expressed itself on the merits.
Correction: The article states that the couple "must also pay the tenant's costs of the proceedings in the District Court and the Court of Appeal, a total of SEK 422,000", without mentioning the applicable costs rule. Under Section 73 of the Land Code (the Tenancy Act), each party must in principle bear its own costs of the appeal proceedings in the Court of Appeal, which means that liability for costs in the Court of Appeal does not automatically follow from losing the case – the court must, relying on the exception provisions, order costs notwithstanding the main rule. The article should therefore have specified on what basis – the District Court's or the Court of Appeal's costs decision, and by reference to which provision – the sum of SEK 422,000 was imposed on the couple, rather than presenting liability for costs as a self-evident consequence of losing the case.
Practical significance: The argument that has now become substantially stronger is that a subtenant in an intermediate-letting arrangement can invoke the security of tenure of a first-hand tenant directly against the property owner, and that this has received final adjudication in two instances with an award of costs against the opposing party. In the parallel proceedings before the Rent Tribunal, where the tenant has been given notice, the tenant should invoke the final judgment as legally binding support for the proposition that the notice is of no effect – which is also what the counsel cited in the article points out. For property owners, the lesson is the opposite: giving notice to a letting company does not mean that one can thereby get rid of the real tenants if the arrangement is found to be a sham, and the risk encompasses both a defeated notice and substantial costs of litigation – here SEK 422,000 – with no guarantee of review by the Supreme Court, which requires a showing that the issue has significance beyond the individual case.
Under Section 8, the registered party must submit reports to the Swedish Chamber of Commerce no later than 1 June (January–April), 1 October (May–August) and 1 February (September–December).
On 1 July 2027, the Act (2026:1459) on Transparency in Communication Intended to Influence Political Decisions enters into force, bringing with it a registration and reporting obligation for anyone lobbying the Riksdag and the Government.
The central legal question for every actor becomes whether its contacts constitute "influence communication" within the meaning of Section 2 — contact with a political decision-maker or that person's staff, with the aim of influencing the preparation or decision in a matter before the Riksdag or the Government, in order to promote a particular interest or outcome. The Act also covers providing, on commission, advice or support to someone who has or intends to have such contact. The obligation applies only to contacts connected to a specific matter, which is the core of the limitation that Annika Hirvonen criticised.
Under Section 3, the registration obligation covers contacts with Members of the Riksdag and ministers, as well as staff members: political secretaries and party staff, employees of the Riksdag Administration, state secretaries, political advisers and other officials in the Government Offices, as well as special investigators, committee members and secretaries in government inquiries.
Tobacco lobbyists and other interest organisations seeking to influence individual matters must, from July 2027, register and begin reporting contacts — with named decision-makers and subjects.