The appointment of directors of these Swedish agencies is effectively identical to the appointment to the commission.

The director of arbetsmiljöverket does not intervene in individual cases either, and in the end the law is what matters.

>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.

Oh man, I’m confused why you keep arguing like the 12th chapter of the Swedish Regeringsform does not exist. What you write is not what is reality in law or reality in effect in Sweden.

I'm literally arguing based on things in the 12th chapter, so I don't understand your remark.

The 12th chapter designates the Genetaldirektörs, Ambassadors, Rikspolischefen, and other government leaders of the executive branch (ie Swedens equivalent of the Commission) as political roles, whose hiring is done by the Regering and the Prime Minister. Regeringsformen also allows the executive branch and their leader to interpret and execute laws. It also allows the executive branches to issue guidance on their interpretation of the law.

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.