I’d like to express my deepest gratitude for the outstanding legal assistance Johan provided in facilitating the immigration process. From the outset, he committed to expediting the proceedings, and his proactive approach truly set him apart. His firm and effective communication with Migrationsverket was instrumental in streamlining the entire process. Johan’s dedication to my case went above and beyond my expectations, with his expertise being evident at every step. I am grateful for the positive outcome and I will not hesitate to recommend his services to anyone seeking expert legal assistance in immigration cases.

The municipality and a local association had a legal dispute concerning the ownership of a certain bathing jetty. The question at issue before the court was regarding the ownership of the bathing jetty – was it owned by the municipality or the association? The question of ownership would in turn decide which entity which is responsible for repair costs amounting to at least 1 million SEK. Through VS Jurist’s efforts, the association won the case against the municipality, as the court ruled that the municipality is the rightful owner.

Many of our clients have questions about how to immigrate to Sweden. There are 4 main ways in which one can get a residence permit for Sweden (if neither EU citizen nor citizen in any of the other Nordic countries):

  1. Residence permit to move to spouse/partner or future spouse/partner or other family member.
  2. Work permit because of binding employment offer from Swedish company.
  3. Work permit to start your own company in Sweden.
  4. Residence permit for studies in Sweden.

For more information about these alternatives, we recommend that you study the information available on the Swedish Migration Board’s (Migrationsverkets) website.

If you need help and wish to hire our legal services – don’t hesitate to get in touch!

VS Jurist, on behalf of a client, objected to a decision by the Swedish Enforcement Authority (Kronofogden) by filing an application to set aside a judgment by default (a so called “ansökan om återvinning”) by letter mail. The Enforcement incorrectly registered the application as belonging to someone else, whereafter the District Court repeated the same mistake. After the District Court had discovered and corrected its mistake, the question arose whether the legal costs that had resulted from the Enforcement Authority’s and the District Court’s mistake should be paid by our client or by the government.

The following is stated in the Chancellor of Justice (JK)’s verdict (Dnr 2020/2906 ) (freely translated from Swedish):

“The Enforcement Authority’s wrongful registration of XX:s application is to be regarded as such a fault or negligence that requires the state to pay damages. Even the District court has been negligent in its handling of the case since it did not discover that the application rightly belonged to XX. The fact that the District Court trusted the Enforcement Authority’s information, does not render any other judgment.”

Comment by VS Jurist:

”Very few are fortunate enough to prevail in a legal proceeding before the office of the Chancellor of Justice against the Swedish government. We are happy that we could help our client to make sure that the legal costs will be paid by the government and not by our client.”

Hate speech is always unacceptable, which is why most countries have laws that regulate when our universal human right to freedom of speech crosses the border into illegal activity. Lately, however, we have seen a very worrisome development where a few global high-tech companies – in an unacceptable manner – more and more have limited free speech on their platforms.

Elon Musk has criticized Twitter for its discriminatory and anti-free speech censorship, which has simply gone way over the line, and promised to change the company’s current course. Therefore, Musk’s purchase of Twitter is probably the best thing that has happened to democracy and freedom of speech in a very long time.

Go for it, Elon!

“Anita” had applied for residence in Sweden because of her marriage to a man with Swedish citizenship. The application was denied by the Swedish Migration Board and the case was therefore appealed to the Administrative Court in Göteborg.

The reason for the Migration Board’s rejection was that Anita had said that the husband’s cousin was his “brother”, and amid suspicions that the husband previously had received his status in Sweden through a fake marriage etc.

VS Jurist managed to convince the Administrative Court that the circumnstances which had been the basis of the Migration Board’s decision were misjudged.

Johan Olehäll, legal counsel at VS Jurist, comments:
– We are glad that the court considered the evidence we filed that clearly showed that our client had the right to be granted residence in Sweden. The court’s decision was both humane and legally correct.

(Anita is not the client’s real name.)

The Republican majority leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, has along with several other leading Republicans said that Neil Gorsuch, ”one way or the other”, will be sworn in as the next Supreme Court Justice before the week is over.

In an attempt to obstruct and delay the process (read: to win political points within his own electorate) the Democratic senator from Oregon, Jeff Merkley, is delivering a marathon speech that, when this article was written, had gone on for more than 15 hours nonstop (!).

The US Senate has since long (with a few exceptions) followed an internal rule requiring a qualified majority of 60 votes to confirm a Justice to the Supreme Court nominated by the President. This instead of having a simple majority vote of 51 delegates (there are 100 delegates in the Senate, if votes are tied the Vice President gets to cast the deciding vote).

President Trump’s choice, judge Neil Gorsuch, may be conservative, but there is hardly any reasonable person who questions neither his competence nor his legal qualifications. On the contrary, he is regarded one of the sharpest judges in the whole country and one of the most qualified candidates for the job.

Disappointed after the loss of a highly contested Presidential election, and because the Republicans refused to allow Obama to fill the empty spot in the end of his term with his own choice, judge Merrick Garland, the Democrats in the senate have now united in an attempt to block the nomination of Gorsuch. The reason the Republicans refused to let through Merrick Garland during an election year was that they argued that the voters, the American people, should be allowed to have a say by voting for the Presidential candidate they wanted to have to honor of appointing the next Supreme Court Justice. Most likely the Democrats would have acted just the same if they were in the same situation.

Back to the nominee, Neil Gorsuch. No one doubts his legal qualifications. Nor is he more controversial, or a more “right wing conservative” than the judges appointed by Obama (with enough support from Republicans to reach the threshold of 60 votes) were “left wing liberals”. On the contrary, statistics show that Gorsuch has been on the same side as the majority opinion in 99 % of the verdicts he has taken part of as a judge during the past decade. These numbers speak for themselves.

By their obstructionist behavior, the Democrats are basically forcing the Republican majority in the Senate to change the voting rules so that it will only take a simple majority of 51 votes to confirm Gorsuch. A change of rules will most likely lead to more controversial appointments to the Supreme Court in the future – both under Trump’s presidency, but also under future administrations of both parties.

We can thereby expect a more activist Supreme Court in the future, where judges, instead of applying the law as it was originally intended, legislate from the bench. That would not only be an unfortunate development, but also a dangerous one, as legislative power, in every well-functioning democracy, should be the exclusive privilege of the national parliaments, chosen by the people in free and fair elections.

What do you do when you rent out a room or an apartment to someone who refuses to vacate after the end of the agreed period? In Sweden it is not allowed to take matters into your own hands and throw out the person in question by force.

Instead, you have to initiate a process in Swedish called ”ansökan om handräckning” (application for order to pay) at Kronofogden (the Swedish Enforcement Authority), which might lead to that the case eventually will be decided in court.

M had rented out his apartment to F second hand. After the agreed time, F refused to move out from the apartment. The parties had different opinions on the content of the rental agreement as well as the rental price.

The case was brought before the Södertörn District Court in Stockholm. Today the verdict came, and it was a victory for our client: The respondent will be evicted immediately and will also be obliged to pay the legal fees of the plaintiff and to reimburse him for withheld rent payments.