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.
There's this stuff about clarifying the DSA, for example. They simply shouldn't have such a power.