In his initial remarks, President of the Supreme Court Anders Eka describes, among other things, the impact the coronavirus pandemic has had on the activities of the Supreme Court:
”The vast majority of cases brought before the Supreme Court are decided solely on the basis of written proceedings. Compared to many other courts - in which a large number of hearings take place each year with the parties physically present - it has naturally been easier for the Supreme Court to adapt its activities to the new conditions. The difference relative to previous years has consisted of the fact that we have used, where needed, digital participation in the presentation of reports. In this way, the Justices and other employees have been able to work remotely when required. With these adaptations, with flexibility and the positive mindset of all employees, the work has proceeded well while the quality of our activities has been maintained,” says Anders Eka.
Justice Johan Danelius and Administrative Director Maria Edwardsson, both of whom assumed their positions in 2020, are interviewed about their new roles. The Activity Report also contains a section describing the digital development in the Supreme Court and how this has played a role in day-to-day work. In addition, the Report contains sections on the Council on Legislation and on the special procedural devices referred to as referral leave and fast-track leave.
As in previous years, the Activity Report contains, among other things, brief summaries of important, guiding rulings issued during the year. Amongst the more noteworthy cases decided in 2020, mention may be made of the following:
- The “Girjas” case in which the Supreme Court ruled that a Sami reindeer herding and economic district possesses a sole right to grant hunting and fishing rights due to immemorial prescription.
- The ”RC24” case in which the Supreme Court concluded that a seller of narcotic preparations can, under certain circumstances, be deemed liable for gross causing the death of another.
- The “Restraining Order Review” case in which the Supreme Court examined the question of whether a person subject to a restraining order may obtain review of the restraining order notwithstanding that the period of validity has expired. The case was decided in plenary, which means that all 16 Justices participated in the ruling.
Mathilda Kilander, Administrative Junior Judge
+46 (0)8-561 666 61