2024-01-312023/24:CU7 · p.1CUCivil law & housing
Fee for examination of a dispute at the General Complaints Board
Fee for having a dispute examined by the National Board for Consumer Disputes
What's at stake: For many consumers the board is the only realistic way to obtain redress against a company without going to court. A fee could filter out complaints that never get examined on the merits and free up resources, but it also risks deterring people with low-value disputes or tight finances from filing at all.
Case texts and AI reasoning are AI-translated from the Swedish originals; the Swedish text is authoritative.
What the vote decides
The question is whether a fee should be introduced for consumers who want a dispute examined by the National Board for Consumer Disputes, or whether examination should remain free of charge and resources instead go to consumer guidance, among other things.
Yes Yes — the committee proposal
The committee agrees with the government's assessment that a modest fee will reduce the number of complaints that are never examined on the merits, free up resources for the cases that are examined, and thereby increase access to dispute resolution and strengthen consumer protection, and that the risk of anyone refraining from filing for financial reasons is small since the fee is low. The Riksdag therefore adopts the government's bill and rejects the motions.
No No — the reservations
Reservation 1 (S, V, MP)
The reservation (S, V, MP) wants the fee for examination by the National Board for Consumer Disputes not to be introduced, and consumer guidance to be strengthened instead. The reasoning is that a fee risks preventing consumers from having their rights examined, particularly in low-value disputes.
Summarised from the committee report. Party labels in the summary come from the report, not from the vote.
What do the votes mean here?
Yes The committee proposal: adopting the government's legislative proposal and rejecting the motions (keeping things as they are).
No Backing the counter-proposal: reservation 1 by S, V, MP.
Abstain The party marks a position of its own that is not one of the two final alternatives.
What each plan points to — and how the party voted
For each party: the vote its own election manifesto and party programme point to in this case, next to how the party actually voted. A plan can only point to Yes or No; a party can also abstain.
| Plan | Vote | Confidence | Evidence | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| V | No | No 0/20/0/4 | follows the plan | confidence: medium | derived |
| S | No | No 0/94/0/13 | follows the plan | confidence: medium | not addressed |
| MP | No | No 0/15/0/3 | follows the plan | confidence: high | not addressed |
| C | No | Yes 21/0/0/3 | departs from the plan | confidence: medium | derived |
| L | No | Yes 13/0/0/3 | departs from the plan | confidence: medium | not addressed |
| KD | No | Yes 16/0/0/3 | departs from the plan | confidence: low | derived |
| M | Yes | Yes 60/0/0/8 | follows the plan | confidence: low | not addressed |
| SD | Yes | Yes 63/0/0/9 | follows the plan | confidence: low | not addressed |
Committee proposal
Parliament adopts the government's proposal for an act amending the act (2015:671) on alternative dispute resolution in consumer disputes. Thus Parliament approves proposition 2023/24:5 and rejects motions 2023/24:228 by Nadja Awad et al. (V), 2023/24:1341 by Jennie Nilsson et al. (S) and 2023/24:1871 by Katarina Luhr et al. (MP).
Original (Swedish)
Riksdagen antar regeringens förslag till lag om ändring i lagen (2015:671) om alternativ tvistlösning i konsumentförhållanden. Därmed bifaller riksdagen proposition 2023/24:5 och avslår motionerna 2023/24:228 av Nadja Awad m.fl. (V), 2023/24:1341 av Jennie Nilsson m.fl. (S) och 2023/24:1871 av Katarina Luhr m.fl. (MP).
Riksdag decision: The government is given the opportunity to introduce a fee for examination of a dispute at the General Complaints Board. Parliament approved the government's proposal, which involves an amendment to the act on alternative dispute resolution in consumer disputes. The influx of cases to the General Complaints Board has increased steadily in recent years. Moreover, the cases have become more complicated and extensive. Today, approximately one-third of cases are dismissed, usually because the complainant has not submitted the required supplementary information. In these cases, the authority uses resources on cases that will not be examined on the merits. According to the government, there is likely a connection between the large number of cases that are dismissed due to missing supplementary information and the fact that today it is free to file a complaint. A fee would therefore likely reduce the number of complaints that will not be examined on the merits. The legislative change enters into force on 1 July 2024.
Counter-proposals
- The counter-proposal wants to reject the introduction of fees for ARN dispute resolution and instead strengthen consumer guidance. (S, V, MP) — Reservation 1
Plan vs actual vote
Every party, in chamber order: what its own plan pointed to, how it voted, and the reasoning behind both. Highlighted rows are where the two differ — but a vote that follows the plan is a result too, so the reasoning is there for every party.
The plan's guiding principle is that needs and not ability to pay shall determine access to society's services, and the plan notes that fees actually cause groups to refrain for economic reasons.
Plan documents: party programme · 2022 manifesto
Reasoning and quotes
The plan's guiding principle is that needs and not ability to pay shall determine access to society's services, and the plan notes that fees actually cause groups to refrain for economic reasons. A charge for having a consumer dispute adjudicated places an economic threshold in front of legal review, which the plan opposes. The plan instead wants to secure everyone's equality before the law through transparency and legal aid.
Original (Swedish)
Planens bärande princip är att behoven och inte betalningsförmågan ska avgöra tillgången till samhällets tjänster, och planen konstaterar att avgifter faktiskt får grupper att avstå av ekonomiska skäl. En avgift för att få en konsumenttvist prövad lägger en ekonomisk tröskel framför rättslig prövning, vilket planen motsätter sig. Planen vill i stället säkra allas likhet inför lagen genom insyn och rättshjälp.
- need before ability to paydecisive»Socialtjänstlagen ska tolkas extensivt. Behoven, inte betalningsförmågan ska vara avgörande, vilket gäller alla boende i Sverige oavsett om« (party programme ↗)“The Social Services Act shall be interpreted broadly. Needs, not ability to pay shall be decisive, which applies to everyone living in Sweden regardless of whether”
- fees exclude low-income earners»Detta innebär att en ganska stor grupp avstår från tandvård av ekonomiska skäl.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“This means that a fairly large group refrains from dental care for economic reasons.”
- everyone's equality before the law»ska inte ha politiska befogenheter och de ska själva stå fria från politisk maktutövning. Genom medborgerlig insyn, rättshjälp, offentlig« (party programme ↗)“shall not have political authority and they shall themselves be free from political exercise of power. Through public transparency, legal aid, public”
The plan wants to strengthen the individual's position as a consumer and direct support to those most affected by price increases.
Plan documents: 2022 manifesto · party programme
Reasoning and quotes
The plan wants to strengthen the individual's position as a consumer and direct support to those most affected by price increases. A fee to have a consumer dispute reviewed imposes a new cost on households with thin margins, which contradicts the plan's line that access to common public services should not be determined by the wallet. The counter-proposal's requirement to refrain from the fee and instead strengthen consumer guidance thereby aligns with the plan.
Original (Swedish)
Planen vill stärka den enskildes ställning som konsument och rikta stöd till dem som drabbas hårdast av prisökningarna. En avgift för att få en konsumenttvist prövad lägger en ny kostnad på hushåll med små marginaler, vilket strider mot planens linje att tillgången till gemensamma samhällstjänster inte ska avgöras av plånboken. Motförslagets krav på att avstå från avgiften och i stället stärka konsumentvägledningen följer därmed planen.
- targeted support during price increasesdecisive»Stöd till de som drabbas hårdast av prisökningarna.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Support for those most affected by price increases.”
- strengthened consumer position»varje människa som medborgare, löntagare och konsument ska ha« (party programme ↗)“every person as citizen, wage-earner and consumer shall have”
- consumer power against rule-breaking»Aktiva konsumentreaktioner mot företag som bryter mot reglerna kan påtagligt bidra till« (party programme ↗)“Active consumer reactions against companies that break the rules can significantly contribute to”
- fees as obstacles»Biblioteken ska vara avgiftsfria.« (party programme ↗)“Libraries shall be free of charge.”
Worldstate weighed in: Inflation 4.4 percent and policy rate 4.0 percent press household margins — Makes a new review fee a real obstacle for those the plan wants to protect
The party programme wants strong protection for consumers through good consumer guidance and relevant consumer education, and that consumers shall be able to make free and informed choices.
Plan documents: party programme
Reasoning and quotes
The party programme wants strong protection for consumers through good consumer guidance and relevant consumer education, and that consumers shall be able to make free and informed choices. A fee to have a consumer dispute reviewed instead raises a barrier between the individual and dispute resolution. The counter-proposal's requirement for no fee and strengthened consumer guidance therefore directly addresses the plan's commitment.
Original (Swedish)
Partiprogrammet vill ett starkt skydd för konsumenterna genom just god konsumentvägledning och en relevant konsumentutbildning, och att konsumenter ska kunna göra fria och upplysta val. En avgift för att få en konsumenttvist prövad reser i stället ett hinder mellan den enskilde och tvistlösningen. Motförslagets krav på ingen avgift och stärkt konsumentvägledning svarar därför direkt mot planens åtagande.
- strengthened consumer guidancedecisive»för konsumenterna genom god konsumentvägledning« (party programme ↗)“for consumers through good consumer guidance”
- free and informed choices»Konsumenter ska ha möjligheter att göra fria och« (party programme ↗)“Consumers shall have opportunities to make free and”
- consumer awareness in schools»en relevant konsumentutbildning i skolan.« (party programme ↗)“relevant consumer education in schools.”
The election manifesto establishes that the possibility of getting one's case heard must not be reserved for those with high incomes and that everyone who lives in Sweden shall be able to get their case heard.
Plan documents: 2022 manifesto · party programme
Reasoning and quotes
The election manifesto establishes that the possibility of getting one's case heard must not be reserved for those with high incomes and that everyone who lives in Sweden shall be able to get their case heard. A fee for having a consumer dispute heard raises precisely that threshold, especially for households with narrow margins. The party programme also wants to see enforceable rights and that everyone can defend their rights. The plan therefore supports the demand to refrain from a fee and instead strengthen consumer guidance.
Original (Swedish)
Valmanifestet slår fast att möjligheten att få sin sak prövad inte får vara förbehållen dem med hög inkomst och att alla som bor i Sverige ska kunna få sin sak prövad. En avgift för att få en konsumenttvist prövad höjer just den tröskeln, särskilt för hushåll med små marginaler. Partiprogrammet vill dessutom se utkrävbara rättigheter och att alla kan försvara sina rättigheter. Planen stöder därför kravet att avstå från avgift och i stället stärka konsumentvägledningen.
- hearing regardless of incomedecisive»Möjligheten att processa mot stat eller kommun, då man har goda skäl att få sin sak prövad, ska i en liberal demokrati inte vara en rätt förbehållen de med hög inkomst.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“The possibility of taking legal action against state or municipality, when you have good reason to get your case heard, shall in a liberal democracy not be a right reserved for those with high income.”
- access to dispute resolution»Alla som bor i Sverige ska kunna få sin sak prövad.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Everyone who lives in Sweden shall be able to get their case heard.”
- enforceable rights»Vi vill se en rättighetslagstiftning, ett tydligt samhällskontrakt med utkrävbara rättigheter.« (party programme ↗)“We want to see rights-based legislation, a clear social contract with enforceable rights.”
- decisions can be appealed»Politiska beslut och juridiska domslut måste kunna överklagas« (party programme ↗)“Political decisions and legal judgements must be able to be appealed”
The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.
The plan requires that consumers throughout the country have access to impartial consumer guidance and that general legal aid is strengthened, thus that the path to redress becomes broader and not narrower.
Plan documents: party programme
Reasoning and quotes
The plan requires that consumers throughout the country have access to impartial consumer guidance and that general legal aid is strengthened, thus that the path to redress becomes broader and not narrower. A fee for getting a consumer dispute tried raises the threshold to trial, whereas the counter-proposal both rejects the fee and wants to strengthen guidance. The plan therefore supports the counter-proposal's requirement, but does not address fees in the board.
Original (Swedish)
Planen kräver att konsumenter i hela landet har tillgång till opartisk konsumentvägledning och att den allmänna rättshjälpen stärks, alltså att vägen till upprättelse blir bredare och inte snävare. En avgift för att få en konsumenttvist prövad höjer tröskeln till prövning, medan motförslaget både avvisar avgiften och vill stärka vägledningen. Planen stöder därför motförslagets krav, men uttalar sig inte om avgifter i nämnden.
- impartial consumer guidancedecisive»Konsumenter ska ha tillgång till budget- och skuldrådgivning och opartisk« (party programme ↗)“Consumers shall have access to budget and debt counselling and impartial”
- strengthened legal aid»Den allmänna rättshjälpen ska stärkas.« (party programme ↗)“General legal aid shall be strengthened.”
- individuals' right to trial»Den enskildes möjligheter att hävda sina rättigheter gentemot myndigheterna måste öka.« (party programme ↗)“The individual's opportunities to assert their rights toward authorities must increase.”
The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.
The plan says nothing about fees for dispute resolution, but states that comprehensive consumer information is necessary and that market economy requires active and well-informed consumers.
Plan documents: party programme
Reasoning and quotes
The plan says nothing about fees for dispute resolution, but states that comprehensive consumer information is necessary and that market economy requires active and well-informed consumers. The counter-proposal's requirement is precisely that the fee is waived and consumer guidance is strengthened instead. The nearest lying principle in the plan thus speaks for the counter-proposal, but the foundation is weak.
Original (Swedish)
Planen säger inget om avgifter vid tvistlösning, men slår fast att en väl utbyggd konsumentinformation är nödvändig och att marknadsekonomin kräver aktiva och välinformerade konsumenter. Motförslagets krav är just att avgiften uteblir och att konsumentvägledningen stärks i stället. Den närmast liggande principen i planen talar därmed för motförslaget, men underlaget är svagt.
- comprehensive consumer informationdecisive»En väl utbyggd konsumentinformation« (party programme ↗)“Comprehensive consumer information”
- active and well-informed consumers»En fungerande marknadsekonomi kräver aktiva« (party programme ↗)“A functioning market economy requires active”
- support for consumer organizations»Fria och självständiga konsumentorganisationer ska uppmuntras.« (party programme ↗)“Free and independent consumer organizations shall be encouraged.”
The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.
The plan does not address fees in consumer disputes.
Plan documents: party programme · 2022 manifesto
Reasoning and quotes
The plan does not address fees in consumer disputes. The closest principles are that public waste should be combated, that the state's finances should be strong and that the public should not do what can be done equally well by others, which speaks against waiving a fee and instead expanding public consumer guidance. The conclusion is therefore derived and uncertain.
Original (Swedish)
Planen behandlar inte avgifter i konsumenttvister. Närmast liggande principer är att offentligt slöseri ska bekämpas, att statens finanser ska vara starka och att det offentliga inte ska utföra det som kan göras lika bra av andra, vilket talar mot att avstå från en avgift och i stället bygga ut offentlig konsumentvägledning. Slutsatsen är därför härledd och osäker.
- bekämpa offentligt slöseridecisive»Offentligt slöseri i alla former ska bekämpas.« (party programme ↗)“Public waste in all forms shall be combated.”
- starka statsfinanser»Statens finanser ska vara starka.« (party programme ↗)“The state's finances shall be strong.”
- begränsat offentligt åtagande»Om något kan göras lika bra eller bättre av« (party programme ↗)“If something can be done equally well or better by”
- effektiv myndighetshandläggning»Korta myndigheternas handläggningstider genom en bortre tidsgräns« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Shorten government agencies' processing times through an outer deadline”
The plan does not address consumer dispute resolution.
Plan documents: 2022 manifesto · party programme
Reasoning and quotes
The plan does not address consumer dispute resolution. The closest principle is the requirement that public funds be used efficiently and that clear results be demanded for every initiative, which speaks for a low fee that frees up resources for matters that are examined on the merits rather than for expanded consumer guidance. The position is therefore derived and uncertain.
Original (Swedish)
Planen behandlar inte konsumenttvistlösning. Närmast liggande princip är kravet på att offentliga medel används effektivt och att tydliga resultat begäras för varje satsning, vilket talar för en låg avgift som frigör resurser till de ärenden som prövas i sak snarare än för utbyggd konsumentvägledning. Ställningstagandet är därför härlett och osäkert.
- results requirement on initiativesdecisive»Begära tydliga resultat för varje offentlig satsning« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Demand clear results for every public initiative”
- economy in the public sector»Skala bort onödiga utgifter i det offentliga« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Scale back unnecessary expenses in the public sector”
- respect for tax revenue»respekt för skattebetalarnas pengar« (party programme ↗)“respect for taxpayers' money”
Share and embed
Sources and documents
- The committee report on riksdagen.se (2023/24:CU7)
- Committee report full text (HB01CU7)
- Per-MP voting data (API)
- Case status (API)
Documents under consideration
- Motion 2023/24:1341 — med anledning av prop. 2023/24:5 Avgift vid prövning av en tvist hos Allmänna reklamationsnämnden av Jennie Nilsson m.fl. (S)
- Motion 2023/24:1871 — med anledning av prop. 2023/24:5 Avgift vid prövning av en tvist hos Allmänna reklamationsnämnden av Katarina Luhr m.fl. (MP)
- Motion 2023/24:228 — med anledning av prop. 2023/24:5 Avgift vid prövning av en tvist hos Allmänna reklamationsnämnden av Nadja Awad m.fl. (V)
- Proposition 2023/24:5 — Avgift vid prövning av en tvist hos Allmänna reklamationsnämnden
Source: The Swedish Parliament