A notable problem in this regard is that decisions of administrative courts under Article 49 FL are not generally appealable. Thus, no administrative courts of appeal, nor the Supreme Administrative Court, are in a position to establish sufficient precedent on the case-law concerning the general delay action procedure. Though, see, HFD 2023 ref. 49. Förvaltningsrättslig tidskrift 2026, https://doi.org/10.53292/ba5659bf.7b2a7d93
Hänvisas från p. 7 (s. 423)
7.The design of the failure to act procedure raises the question of which court of law should hear the application. The most coherent approach would be to vest jurisdiction in the same administrative court that issued the original Article 49 FL order, on the basis that it is already familiar with the case and the history of non-compliance. This would avoid the duplication and delay associated with commencing proceedings before a different court of law, and would allow the administrative court to develop expertise in assessing failure to act applications over time. The application process would be straightforward, a written application by the person, with a copy of the original Article 49 FL order and evidence that the specified period has elapsed without a decision, would be sufficient to establish the threshold for the administrative court to adjudicate. The public authority would be given a short period to respond, after which the administrative court would proceed to judgment.s. 423