My understanding is Sweden's "SEC" (in US terms) is called Finansinspektionen. Wouldnt this EU commission be like the Finansinspektionen issuing a fine or revoking a license if a bank didnt comply with regulations? My understanding is the Finansinspektionen can do this sort of thing but has to go to the court for larger actions.
Perhaps the EU commission has a bit more leeway?
The European Commission is both the executive and legal branch. They propose the legislation that the European Parliament can only approve or reject. On the other hand, the European Patliament can not propose anything at all.
The Commission is elected by member states and thus represents them indirectly.
While I agree this should ideally also be available to the EP, it doesn't make the EC a legislative branch. It's very much the executive.
Law comes from parliament alone, and the constitution does not permit for the executive (regeringen) to intervene in individual cases.
The EU Commission does not make up rules anymore than these government agencies in Sweden does.
The EU commission on the other hand actually has power.
As one other example, consider the Swedish terrorism law. There's no such thing as designating something a terrorist organization-- that's constitutionally impossible, instead it's determined by the courts. Meanwhile the EU commission can actually designate a group as a terrorist organization, no court case necessary.
>Ingen myndighet, inte heller riksdagen eller en kommuns beslutande organ, får bestämma hur en förvaltningsmyndighet i ett särskilt fall ska besluta i ett ärende som rör myndighetsutövning mot en enskild eller mot en kommun eller som rör tillämpningen av lag.
No authority [...] may decide how an administrative authority is to decide in a case involving use of authority against an individual[...]
Furthermore, the commission is not like a directors of an agency. They are politicians. I would compare them to government ministers, who are appointed in a similar way.
You seem to be under the impression that the executive branch in Sweden has no political rulemaking powers when it in fact has been given such according to constitution law.
In fact, this seems to be pretty similar to Sweden, quoting from [1]:
> Most state administrative authorities (statliga förvaltningsmyndigheter), as opposed to local authorities (kommuner), sorts under the Government, including the Armed Forces, Coast Guard, Customs Service and the police.
It appears that the swedish government can also initiate legislation, just like the commission (although the Riksdag can initiate on their own, something the European parliament cannot).
Also, fwiw: The fines can also be adjusted or cancelled by the court of Justice of the EU
There's this stuff about clarifying the DSA, for example. They simply shouldn't have such a power.
The commission though, is literally doing things relating to individual cases, and they're politicians directly appointed by European governments.
Simply, it's not rule of law, it's rule by the council.
For example Danske Fragtmænd, challenged the Commission's decision that capital injections by Denmark and Sweden into Postnorrd did not constitute unlawful state aid.
(https://www.lexxion.eu/en/stateaidpost/what-competitors-must...)
> they're politicians directly appointed by European governments.
Just like Generaldirektörer in Sweden then.
I gave the example of their to designate terrorist organization, which as you probably know is a power that is impossible constitutionally in Sweden. The commission has actual authority which is extremely broad and wielded in individual cases.
This is not a power that they should have.
In other words the executive branch has rulemaking powers in Sweden according to you.
How is that meaningfully different from how a EU commissioner is appointed?
>3 § Med terroristorganisation avses i denna lag en sammanslutning av personer som begår eller på annat sätt medverkar till terroristbrott eller gör sig skyldiga till försök, förberedelse eller stämpling till terroristbrott.
Thus the government, SÄPO, the authorities etc. have no power over what is a terrorist organisation. There's designation or possibility of designation. Only the above definition defines it.
Notice that even state organizations of friendly states can in principle be terrorist organizations according to this definition. It's among the most beautiful laws we have.
I was initially opposed to the inquiry to develop this law, because I feared that we'd something deranged, something against our constitution where the government or some authority designates organizations as terrorist and where it's thus a political matter, but we got really lucky. This law is like a pearl, and it's moral delight, so beautiful that one should cry. Actual generality, actual equality before the law, actual apolitical court-based and truth-based, where others have political determinations.
The law which allow SÄPO to designate terror organisations is this: https://www.regeringen.se/regeringens-politik/utrikes--och-s...
Funnily enough this means that SÄPO generally consults with EU and UN regarding the classification status.
The government doesn't proscribe organizations or make decisions about what is a terrorist organization. That is entirely up to the courts.
Who SÄPO consults with has no legal significance. I'm sure they even talk to the Turks.
What you link to relates to the Swedish government's ability to institute sanctions against foreign states and persons. That has nothing to do with what is a terrorist organization in Swedish law. Whether an organization is sanctioned does not affect whether the definition applies.
Here in Sweden we have a legal tradition where the government doesn't have power over the enforcement of the laws-- parliament can make any law it likes, and it can be anything, but enforcement and the courts are isolated from the politicians.
I really don't like that the commission can make up rules, or fine people etc. It's a bad system. It should be done by an impartial regular, or prosecutor or a court. This kind of system opens up the commission to political blackmail and threats from powerful states, it opens up for corruption, it opens up for uneven enforcement, and there's just no reason to have the system this way.
You could easily imagine a world where Google was a big US government darling and where they put their weight on the commission and got an outcome that isn't in accordance with law, but with the right system, one more like the Swedish system, that won't be possible.