The proposal being reviewed is the government's legislative proposal on the elimination of permanent residence permits and adaptation to the EU's migration and asylum pact.
The Legal Council, which consists of judges and former judges of the Supreme Court, writes that "A simplified view of refugee immigration has led to proposals that are insufficiently transparent and lacking in the democratic anchoring that the consultation procedure is intended to ensure. The preparatory work is therefore fraught with serious shortcomings."
But since the Migration and Asylum Pact comes into force in June, a Swedish adaptation must be made now, despite the shortcomings, the Legal Council notes.
Looking at the rules mechanically
The Legal Council repeatedly points out that the government seems to view the Migration and Asylum Pact mechanically and forgets that the rules are about people.
"What general humanity demands is certainly an ethical issue, but when it comes to the individual's right to be recognized and thus treated as a refugee, the principles of proportionality that permeate the European Convention and also otherwise characterize the legal order must be taken into account," the opinion states.
The judges state in dry legal language that the government's aim of reaching a minimum level is achieved "if the goal is precisely to prevent refugees from entering the country as far as possible."
Short consultation period
A significant risk is that "the system in some cases closes the border to those who are truly entitled to international protection."
The Legal Council once again highlights criticism that the Council has directed at several other large and overlapping proposals from the government: It is not possible to see the whole; the consultation period has been unacceptably short, views and criticism are barely taken up, and much seems to be governed by what is stated in the Tidö Agreement - the governing parties' agreement with the Sweden Democrats. Or 'contract parliamentarism', as the Legal Council calls it.
