Sweden has the legislative and institutional framework to combat and prevent corruption broadly in place. While Sweden has no comprehensive anti-corruption strategy in place codified in writing, the Government envisages to develop a National Action Plan on anti-corruption. The preventive and repressive dimensions of corruption are dealt with through several legal and other regulatory provisions, through specific rules concerning government agencies, as well as through law enforcement and judicial authorities. The National Anti-Corruption Unit is the specialised prosecution agency within the Prosecution responsible for all criminal investigations related to corruption and foreign bribery. The National Anti-Corruption Police Unit, as part of the Swedish Police Authority, has tasks to both investigate corruption crimes and ensure a preventive role by supporting different public authorities in drafting anti-corruption policies. Further agencies such as the National Audit Office, the National Competition Authority, the National Council for Crime Prevention and the Financial police (the Swedish FIU and a part of the Police Authority) are in charge with the prevention, forensic and auditing competence and investigation of corruption.

The Swedish justice system is not facing particular challenges regarding efficiency, despite a particularly high number of incoming administrative cases. The Swedish system performs at an average level regarding the disposition time for both litigious civil and commercial cases as well as administrative cases. The number of incoming administrative cases is particularly high and the number of pending administrative cases has continued to increase slightly since 2016. The clearance rate for administrative cases has in result dropped in 2016 and 2017, but shows a positive trend in 2018, moving back closer to 100%, with the average time to resolve administrative cases still remaining relatively low. As there was no general lockdown, courts have mostly continued to operate normally in the COVID-19 pandemic, with some cancellations and postponements of hearings for public health reasons .

Efforts are ongoing to address challenges concerning the use of digital communication in the Swedish judiciary. The possibility to complete certain steps of the judicial procedure online remains only partially available in Sweden, both as concerns submitting a case and transmitting summons, and no possibility exists to monitor stages of a proceeding online . There is also no online access to first instance court judgments . To enable and facilitate digital communication in court proceedings and improve the service to citizens, the Government has proposed a bill, first presented in August 2019, which aims inter alia to make it possible to submit documents to initiate civil and certain other claims online, submit a power of attorney in digital form, and remove unnecessary requirements for hard copies . The proposal was submitted to Parliament in June 2020. If adopted, most provisions are foreseen to enter into force in January 2021.

The National Courts Administration has requested additional resources, to cope with an increased caseload. Following an increase in the resources of both the police and the prosecution service to strengthen their investigative capacities , there has been a significant rise in the number of incoming criminal cases in first instance courts. To handle this increased caseload, the National Courts Administration has requested to increase the courts’ budget for 2021-2023 in order to cover additional court personnel, training and reforms aiming at improving the efficiency of courts .

The rules for the allocation of cases have been codified. The amendment to the Code of Judicial Procedure stipulates that the allocation of cases must be based on objective criteria established by the court in advance and must not be capable of affecting the outcome or progression of the case . This codifies the already existing practice and ensures that the standards for allocation of cases are set out in law, which is consistent with Council of Europe recommendations . The concrete details for the allocation of cases continue to be specified in rules of procedure or similar standards of the courts .

A reform process to further strengthen judicial independence has been initiated. A Commission of Inquiry on ‘Strengthening the protection of democracy and the independence of the judiciary’ was set up by the Government in February 2020, following a request by the Parliament from 2018. The cross-party inquiry is chaired by the President of the Supreme Court and has a mandate to examine several aspects of the Swedish framework for judicial independence, in order to bring forward proposals for legislative and constitutional amendments . The committee will examine whether the number and retirement age of Supreme Court Judges and Supreme Administrative Court Judges should be regulated in the Constitution . The mandate of the commission sets out that this reflection takes place inter alia in view of the recent case law of the Court of Justice . According to the mandate, the objective would be to protect judges against possible interference due to a lowering of the retirement age by ordinary law. The question of regulating the number of judges in both Supreme Courts will be assessed in view of the legal academic debate in Sweden, in the context of which it has been suggested that an increase or decrease in the number of judges could be used as a means of political influence. In addition, the commission will examine whether the independence of the National Courts Administration should be strengthened . If the commission finds that such a strengthening is warranted, it is within its mandate to propose the establishment of a Council for the Judiciary or of a Board of the National Courts Administration , composed mainly of judges, which would be consistent with Council of Europe recommendations . The work of the commission is at an early stage and will include a review of existing systems in other EU Member States. Its results will be presented in February 2023. The inclusive method for preparing such a reform, including the cross-party process and the attention given to recent case law of the Court of Justice are particularly noteworthy.

The level of perceived independence of the judiciary is consistently very high. Overall, 80% of both the general public and companies consider that the independence of the courts and judges in Sweden is either ‘very good’ or ‘fairly good’ . This high level of perceived judicial independence has been stable overall, and has slightly increased for the general public, since 2016.

The Swedish justice system has two branches: the general courts, consisting of 48 district courts, six courts of appeal and the Supreme Court; and the general administrative courts with twelve administrative courts, four administrative courts of appeal and the Supreme Administrative Court. There are also two special courts . The National Courts Administration, an agency operating under the Ministry of Justice, is responsible for the overall management of the Courts, including allocation of resources, staffing levels and equipment. The independent Judges’ Proposal Board prepares proposals for all judicial appointments , based on which judges are appointed by the Government . The Swedish Prosecution Service is independent and separate from the Government. The Swedish Bar Association is an independent and self-governing association established by law.

A particular characteristic of the system of checks and balances is the inclusive and structured process for preparing legislation. This process is being used for the above-mentioned examination of the constitutional framework relating to the judiciary. In this process, a reform of the procedure for amending the constitution will also be considered as a means to enhance the protection of the basic structures of the democratic system. Several independent authorities play a role in safeguarding fundamental rights, and a reform process to extend the mandate of the National Human Rights Institution is ongoing. Furthermore, the Government has implemented specific instruments for dialogue with civil society.

Sweden has a long regulatory tradition of media freedom and pluralism. Its legal safeguards concerning media freedom and pluralism stem from both constitutional and legislative framework and appear to be fully implemented in practice. The Swedish media regulator possesses strong guarantees of its independence, enshrined in the constitutional provisions. No major issues are reported in the area of media ownership transparency, despite the fact that there are no specific rules for media companies. Sweden also proves to have a robust system concerning journalists’ protection. The conditions in which Swedish journalists operate are estimated as one of the most favourable in the world. Nevertheless, some physical and online threats to journalists were reported in 2020.

According to surveys, Sweden is perceived as one of the least corrupt countries in the EU and the world. The Penal Code criminalises most forms of public and private corruption. While there is no codified comprehensive anti-corruption strategy in place, the Government has announced its initiative to develop a National Action Plan on anti-corruption. The public institutions have built a reputation for transparent administration and a reliable and functional corruption prevention framework. Lobbying is not regulated by law. A broad right to information is a core element of the Swedish approach to corruption prevention and public officials are entitled to disclose information to the media. Measures are in place to ensure whistle-blower protection and a review is ongoing to assess the need for amendments in view of the EU Directive (EU) 2019/1937 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law. Foreign bribery remains an area of risk.

The Swedish justice system is characterised by a high level of perceived judicial independence. To further foster judicial independence, Sweden has, in a cross-party inquiry, launched a parliamentary process to examine certain elements of the constitutional framework relating to the judiciary. Additionally, a recent amendment to the Code of Judicial Procedure has codified the rules that govern the allocation of cases. The Government launched a legislative initiative to address challenges relating to the digitalisation of the justice system. In particular, the possibility to complete certain steps of the judicial procedure online is partially available, both as concerns submitting a case and transmitting summons.

Sweden scores 85/100 in the Transparency International Corruption Perception Index and ranks 3rd in the European Union and 4th globally. The 2020 Special Eurobarometer on Corruption shows that 40% of respondents perceive corruption as widespread (EU average: 71%) and 9% of people feel personally affected by corruption in their daily lives (EU average: 26%) . As regards businesses, 30% of companies consider corruption to be widespread (EU average: 63%) and 12% of companies consider that corruption is a problem when doing business (EU average: 37%). 55% of people find that there are enough successful prosecutions to deter people from corrupt practices (EU average: 36%) while 48% of companies believe that people and businesses caught for bribing a senior official are appropriately punished (EU average: 31%).

Sweden has the legal framework to criminalise corruption broadly in place. The Swedish Criminal Code regulates criminal offences such as receiving and giving of a bribe, trading in influence and negligent financing of bribery. The penalty for taking or giving of a bribe can be either fines or imprisonment for a maximum of two years (statute of limitation of five years). The penalty for gross giving/taking of a bribe ranges from six months to six years in prison (statute of limitation of ten years). Moreover, criminal offences such as official misconduct or breach of the duty of confidentiality are regulated in the Criminal Code. In addition, the Public Employment Act adopted in 1994 provides for disciplinary liability for neglect of duty in the form of warnings or wage reduction. The law also prohibits employees’ involvement in activities that may adversely affect confidence in their impartiality in their work or that may harm the reputation of the authority.

While there is no comprehensively codified national anticorruption strategy in place, the Government has announced its initiative to develop a National Action Plan on anti-corruption. The Action Plan is set to be presented at the end of 2020 and discussions with relevant authorities are at an early stage. The intention is to review existing preventive work and identify needs for new measures against corruption, for example by enabling more effective and efficient coordination and collaboration between key authorities.

The responsibility to fight and prevent corruption is distributed across several authorities. The Agency for Public Management manages a national network against corruption since 2017 and conducts research and policy coordination, supporting good governance and anti-corruption. The National Audit Office, whose competences include forensic and auditing expertise, covers both financial and non-financial controls within public sector organisations. The National Council for Crime Prevention functions as the Government's body of expertise within the judicial system . The Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions (SALAR) has coordinated a series of workshops on corruption prevention. In addition, the Financial Police serves as Sweden’s Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) and takes part in investigations within the Police Authority. According to the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (BRÅ) in 2018 , 297 cases of taking bribes and 143 cases of offering bribes were reported. Foreign bribery remains an area of risk since Sweden has one of the highest number of multi-national corporations per capita and the prosecution of foreign bribery is limited by the dual criminality requirement and the corporate liability requirement .

The National Anti-Corruption Unit (NACP) within the Prosecution Authority is responsible for all criminal investigations related to corruption and foreign bribery. Around ten prosecutors and two accountants work at the unit, which focuses solely on anti-corruption cases. The Agency has faced challenges in terms of available analytical capacity and resources in view of the number of cases investigated and prosecuted, with a risk of not being able to process a case within the statute of limitation. The National Anti-Corruption Police Unit (NACPU) was created with the aim of bringing together national competences for investigating corruption crimes in one place and consists of 27 staff, including 14 police, 6 civil investigators and 4 forensic accountants. In addition to investigating corruption crimes, it also has a preventive role supporting public agencies in drafting anti-corruption policies. The NACPU also gives trainings to different authorities and organisations in Sweden on anti-corruption.

Some categories of officials as well as members of Parliament and Ministers are required to submit asset declarations. The Act (2018:1625) on the obligation for certain public officials to report holdings of financial instruments contains provisions on the obligation for ministers and certain officials in public authorities, municipalities and regions to report holdings of financial instruments. Ministers must report their holdings of financial instruments to the Government Offices. Members of a public authority’s management are also obliged to report in case the authority holds insider information. The Government decides which public authorities are subject to such an obligation to report. Such authorities decide which of its officials outside the management will have to report depending on their access to insider information. Municipalities and regions also decide which of their public authorities should be subject to the reporting obligation. Members of the Parliament are required to declare certain economic assets within four weeks of the first meeting in the Riksdag after elections. The information contained in members of Parliaments’ declarations is maintained in a public register kept by the Riksdag Administration. The data is removed from the register after the end of the full parliamentary term. The principle of public access to official documents also applies, which means that members of Parliaments’ declarations must also be made available if requested.

Measures are in place to ensure whistle-blower protection and encourage reporting of corruption. Under the Whistleblowing Act 2016:749, an employer may not subject an employee or a temporary agency worker to reprisals by reason of him or her blowing the whistle on serious irregularities in the employer’s operations . The protection has several components: the freedom to communicate information, to procure information and intelligence, the right to anonymity. At the end of May 2019, the Government launched a review to prepare implementation of the EU Whistle-blowing Directive and assess if any amendments of Swedish law will be required in relation to the Directive.

Rules on ‘revolving doors’ have been introduced for high-level officials, while lobbying provision remains unregulated. The regulation on ’revolving doors’ was adopted in 2018 , setting restrictions on ministers, members of the cabinet and department secretaries that move to employment and assignments in organizations other than Government/public sector. This regulation is applicable to transitions to non-state activities, including when ministers and state secretaries intend to take up a new assignment or employment in non-state activities, or set up a business. “Non-state activities” encompass all activities where the state is not the responsible authority. The regulation also applies to companies that are completely or partially state-owned. The special review body, the Committee for Review of the Transitional Restrictions of the cabinet and department secretaries examines transfers to all activities for which the Government is not the employer. As regards lobbying, there is no specific obligation for registration of lobbyists or reporting of contacts between public officials and lobbyists. GRECO has noted the lack of developed rules to regulate the contact with lobbyists along the trend of former public officials becoming lobbyists.

A broad right to public access to information is a core element of the Swedish approach to corruption prevention. Public officials are entitled to disclose information to the media, the public is entitled to attend the meetings of decision making bodies (Parliament, county council assemblies) and court hearings. Restrictions to this principle are clearly set out in law to safeguard a limited number of important public and private interests .

III.Media Pluralism

The Swedish legal framework concerning media pluralism is based on the safeguards stemming both from the constitutional framework and from secondary law. The Constitution guarantees freedom of expression in the Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression and the Freedom of the Press Act. With regard to the media regulator - the Swedish Press and Broadcasting Authority (Myndigheten för press, radio och tv), its status and competences are regulated both by the Constitution and by the Radio and Television Act. The Swedish legal system does not envisage any sector specific laws concerning the transparency of media ownership.

Sweden has in place effective regulatory safeguards for the independence of the media regulator. The Swedish Press and Broadcasting Authority has a status of an independent administrative authority . The Authority has a statutory obligation to support freedom of expression, diversity, independence and accessibility. Within the authority, there are two independent decision-making bodies: the Swedish Broadcasting Commission and the Media Subsidies Council. The latest edition of the Media Pluralism Monitor (MPM 2020) , has reported a very low risk with regard to the independence and effectiveness of the Swedish media regulatory authority. In 2018, an inquiry was launched to examine Sweden’s implementation of the revised Audio-visual Media Services Directive (AVMSD), including the provisions for the independence and effectiveness of national media regulators. The resulting report was presented to the Government in August 2019 with the conclusion that the Swedish governance model provides a high level of independence for all Swedish authorities, including the media authority. According to the report and as confirmed by the representatives of the Swedish Press and Broadcasting Authority, the most important safeguard stems from Chapter 12, Article 2 of the Instrument of Government, which establishes a general principle of the independence of Swedish administrative authorities. Sweden is currently in the process of transposing the revised AVMSD. This might include further legislative changes aimed at strengthening the independence of the media regulator, in particular in the context of the appointment of its members. The representatives of the Swedish Press and Broadcasting Authority also indicated that they expect an increased budget attribution.

Sweden has a well-established self-regulatory framework in the media sector. The system is entirely voluntary and financed by four press organisations and four broadcasting companies . The Media Ombudsman, in charge of handling complaints on the editorial content of newspapers, magazines, broadcast media and their websites and social media, is appointed by a committee consisting of the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman, the chairman of the Swedish Bar Association and the chairman of the National Press Club. The Media Ombudsman also ensures the compliance with the self-regulatory Code of Ethics for Press, Radio and Television. Appeals against the decisions of the Media Ombudsman are examined by the Media Council, which is composed of four judges, 16 representatives of the media organisations participating in the self-regulatory scheme and 12 representatives of the general public.

With regard to the transparency of media ownership, the Swedish legal system does not provide for any media-specific legislation. As reported by the MPM 2020 , all companies are required to comply with the general framework based on the Swedish Law of Financial Relations (the Transparency Act) which requires companies to be transparent about ownership structures. They should also comply with the Competition Act, which regulates the ownership concentration. Under this regime, all Swedish companies are required to inform the Swedish Competition Authority about their ownership structure and provide annual reports, which also cover information on ownership. Such reports should be publicly available (including publication of their websites). Due to the lack of a media specific framework, the MPM 2020 reports however medium risk for the transparency of media ownership. At the same time, according to the representatives of the Swedish Press and Broadcasting Authority there have not been any concerns related to the identification of owners of media services.

Sweden has a robust framework for the protection and activities of journalists. The conditions in which Swedish journalists operate are estimated as one of the most favourable in the world. The MPM 2020 reported a low risk concerning editorial autonomy in Sweden. In this regard, the Freedom of the Press Act regulates autonomy in appointing and dismissing editors-in-chief. Additionally, a large number of media and journalist organisations have developed self-regulatory initiatives related to the editorial independence. With regard to defamation, imprisonment is among the envisaged sanctions for defamation and insult committed through print and audio-visual media, according to the Freedom of the Press Act (Chapter 7) and the Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression (Chapter 5) read in conjunction with the Swedish Criminal Code. However, as reported by the International Press Institute, criminal prosecutions for defamation involving the media are rare in Sweden, due to extensive requirements for conducting such cases envisaged in the above mentioned acts. Still, some sources, including Reporters without Borders and the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (Brå) , reported that some journalists experience threats as a result of their professional activity. The number of journalists exposed to abusive or derogatory comments online has decreased from 80% in 2013 to about 70% in 2019. In 2019, the Council of Europe Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists did not report any alerts concerning Sweden. In 2020 three alerts, concerning both the cases of physical and online attacks on journalists, were published on the platform. The Swedish Police Authority has launched specific actions aiming to address the fundamental rights and freedoms, including crimes against journalists. This includes setting up national contact points, additional staff to support victims of such crimes, and allocating additional funding to better investigate crimes against democracy and hate crimes. An inquiry chair , appointed by the Government in May 2020, is currently reviewing, among other matters, the criminal law protection for certain vital functions in society, including journalists. This process is expected to examine if any further legislative safeguards concerning freedom of speech should be considered. In addition, journalists benefit from a robust framework for access to information. According to the MPM 2020, the legal provisions concerning access to information and the restrictions on grounds of protection of privacy and confidentiality are clearly defined and stakeholders, such as the Swedish Media Ombudsman, considers that this right is fully respected and well implemented in practice.

IV.Other Institutional Issues related to Checks and Balances

Sweden has a unicameral, parliamentary system of government, in which a Council of Legislation ensures ex-ante constitutional review, while courts can carry out an ex-post constitutional review in concrete cases. Legislative proposals can be submitted by Parliament or the Government, with the latter submitting the vast majority of proposals in practice. , The Chancellor of Justice, the Parliamentary Ombudsmen and the Equality Ombudsman play an important role in the system of checks and balances.

The enactment of legislation is characterised by a particularly inclusive process. The process of preparation of laws starts with the inquiry stage, where the matter in question must first be analysed and evaluated, normally by officials from the responsible ministry, a commission of inquiry, operating independently of the Government, or an inquiry chair (one-person inquiry) . The inquiry draws up a draft legislative proposal. As required by the Constitution , authorities concerned and stakeholders must have an opportunity to express an opinion, which happens through the so-called referral process, for a standard period of three months. While it is addressed to the authorities and stakeholders concerned, it is open to any other organisation or individual as well. The referred proposal and the opinions received are both published on the Government website. Based on the outcome of the inquiry and referral process, the Government prepares its draft bill. This process includes the preparation of an impact assessment, which for proposals with an impact on companies’ working conditions or competitiveness needs to be submitted to the Swedish Better Regulation Council. The Commission of Inquiry on ‘Strengthening the protection of democracy and the independence of the judiciary’ is a good illustration of the importance of such an inclusive process for sensitive matters such as the rule of law. It ensures the representation of different political parties and the judiciary, with the President of the Supreme Court as its chair. The timetable for the commission also avoids carrying out this process under tight deadlines, with its results being due in 2023.

The Council on Legislation is responsible for ex-ante constitutionality review of laws. Before they are submitted to Parliament, the Council on Legislation, composed of former and current judges of the Supreme Court and Supreme Administrative Court , examines legislative proposals by the Government and submits a non-binding opinion on the conformity of the proposal with the Constitution and the legal system as a whole, ensuring that the principles of rule of law are upheld . A committee of the Riksdag (Parliament) can also solicit an opinion by the Council on Legislation. While Sweden does not have a Constitutional Court, all courts can review the compatibility of laws with the Constitution or with superior statues when adjudicating concrete cases and must disapply any incompatible provisions (this is called norm assessment). If a law was adopted in conflict with the opinion of the Council of Legislation, courts can take this into account in the context of the norm assessment .

Sweden is considering a reform of the procedure for amending its Constitution. Currently, constitutional amendments can be adopted by simple majority, but require two consecutive decisions by Parliament with a parliamentary election between them . In addition to the reform of the judiciary, the Commission of Inquiry on ‘Strengthening the protection of democracy and the independence of the judiciary’ will also examine a number of possible changes to the way constitutional amendments are adopted. According to the commission’s mandate, this is under consideration in light of recent developments in other countries showing the importance of robust protection of the basic structures of the democratic system . In particular, the Commission of inquiry will assess if a qualified majority should be required, whether there should be a requirement for a minimum number of members of the Parliament to take part in the decision, and if the elections held between the two decisions must be an ordinary election. The results of this part of the inquiry will also be presented in 2023.