On September 12, 2024, the Swedish Administrative Court found that a decision by the city of Gothenburg to boycott imports of Israeli products violated the Municipality Act, which precludes municipalities from addressing matters under the competence of the national government. (2 ch. 2 § Kommunallag (Municipality Act) (SFS 2017:725).)
Background
On June 13, 2024, the Municipality of Gothenburg in a 5-4 decision voted to block Gothenburg city from “procuring goods produced by Israeli settlements on Palestinian land.”
Specifically, the city’s Purchase and Procurement Board decided the following:
- The administration is instructed to stop buying in products marked with origin from states that engage in illegal occupation of other states.
- The administration is tasked with coming back with proposals on how to purchase goods produced in states engaged in illegal occupation of other states may is minimized.
- The administration is instructed to exclude the purchase of goods that are produced by Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian land.
The decision by the Board was appealed to the district administrative court in Gothenburg. The Municipality Act provides that a district administrative court may overturn a decision that lacks a legal basis, is outside the scope of the powers of a municipality, was decided by the wrong municipal entity, or otherwise violates Swedish law and regulations. (13 ch. 8 §.)
Under Swedish law, cities and municipalities may make decisions that concern the residents of their cities and municipalities but may not address issues that fall solely within the authority of the national government, another municipality, or another region. (2 ch. 1-2 §§.) The legislative history of the Municipality Act indicates that foreign affairs falls under the auspices of the national government. (Prop. 2016:17:171 p. 300.)
The Board had argued that the decision fell was not a foreign affairs matter but fell within the city’s authority because it pertains to procurement instructions for the municipality. It also argued that some issues pertaining to foreign affairs falls within a municipality’s powers, referring specifically to the right of municipalities to adopt sister cities. (Court Decision, pp. 2-3.)
Court Decision
The court found that the decision by the board clearly fell within the scope of foreign affairs and was therefore outside the scope of the city’s mandate. The court determined that the purpose of the decision by the board was to “manifest its disapproval of some—by the board chosen—states’ actions, rather than to achieve expedient public procurement.” (P. 5.)
The court noted prior instances of municipal boycotts being rejected. For example, city boycotts of South African products had been deemed political speech rather than public procurement decisions. The court also cited a case in which a municipality board declared its city a “nuclear weapon free zone,” which the Supreme Administrative Court found to be a political statement on foreign affairs and therefore beyond the scope of the municipality’s mandate. The court concluded that while municipalities may adopt rules for public procurement of goods, they may not comment on matters falling under foreign affairs. (P. 4.)
Elin Hofverberg, Law Library of Congress
September 25, 2024
Read more Global Legal Monitor articles.