Swedish courts have issued unusually blunt criticism of a government-commissioned proposal that would make it easier to strip long-settled migrants of permanent residence permits and put them back onto time-limited status, warning that a “general revocation” model could collide with Swedish legal principles, European Union rules and the European Convention on Human Rights.
The proposal in brief
The proposal is set out in the investigator’s report SOU 2025:99. It would allow many existing permanent residence permits—mainly for people who were granted asylum and their close relatives—to be revoked and replaced with temporary residence permits.
- The investigator, Josephine Boswell, proposed the law take effect on 1 January 2027.
- She estimated between 98,000 and 180,000 people could be covered by the change.
- Boswell also described about 15,000 people as “difficult cases” that would require careful individual assessment.
How the change would work (mechanics)
Advisers and briefings have summarised the mechanics as a two-step process:
- Revocation of existing permanent residence permits.
- Fresh assessment for a temporary residence permit; if a person fails to meet the new conditions, rights tied to settled status could fall away.
This shift would change the legal starting point for many residents: instead of a permanent right to stay unless specific withdrawal grounds apply, people could be forced to re-prove, years after being recognised as needing protection, that they still meet conditions for a permit.
Legal criticisms from Swedish courts
Courts reviewing the consultation package raised several objections:
- The plan risks weakening a core safeguard in Swedish migration law: decisions that affect a person’s right to live in the country must be based on an individual assessment.
- Judges flagged proportionality concerns: the state must not take measures that go further than needed to meet a legitimate aim, particularly where families and long residence are involved.
- Earlier case law has required case-by-case reasoning when authorities interfere with long-term status; a mass revocation approach sits uneasily with that precedent.
- Administrative scale: a broad re-examination of old files would require substantial resources across the Migration Agency and the courts, likely producing large numbers of appeals and adding delay and uncertainty.
“Complex” — Johan Forssell, Sweden’s Minister for Migration, has used this term to describe the issue while defending the political direction.
(He also said most affected people are expected to be able to stay, either by acquiring Swedish citizenship or by qualifying for a temporary permit after withdrawal.)
EU law and human-rights concerns
Critics argued the proposal may conflict with EU rules and the European Convention on Human Rights:
- Courts and observers cited Council Directive 2003/109/EC (the EU instrument on long-term residents), which allows withdrawal of long-term status only on limited grounds: serious criminality, threats to public policy or public security, or fraud.
- A mass or routine revocation system risks going beyond those limited grounds by making loss of status routine rather than exceptional.
- Human-rights concerns focus on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects private and family life. Any interference must be lawful, necessary and proportionate.
- A written question in the European Parliament, E-003827/2025, submitted on 1 October 2025, asked the European Commission to assess whether Sweden’s draft rules would breach Directive 2003/109/EC and whether blanket measures could violate the ECHR. The consultation sources did not include a published Commission assessment.
Estimated impact (numbers)
| Item | Estimate |
|---|---|
| People potentially covered (headline) | 98,000 to 180,000 |
| Described as “difficult cases” | ~15,000 |
| Proposed effective date | 1 January 2027 |
These figures underline the potential administrative burden and the human consequences of edge cases.
Practical effects on families, employers and migrants
- Families: Permanent residence permits often anchor family stability. Courts warned that broad revocation could produce outcomes where parents with jobs, children in school and years of residence face a sudden loss of secure status.
- Employers and labour market: The change affects hiring, lending and housing because “permanent” status is often treated in practice as proof that a person can stay and work without recurring paperwork. Advisory firms such as KPMG described uncertainty spilling into planning horizons for staff.
- For migrants: Renewal cycles involve checks on identity documents, travel history, criminal records and other factors that can be hard to document across long periods, especially for former refugees. Lawyers say the stress of potential revocation can be severe.
Political response and government stance
- The government, together with the Sweden Democrats who support the direction in parliament, must decide how to respond to the courts’ warnings and EU-law questions.
- Johan Forssell (Moderate Party), Sweden’s Minister for Migration, defended the political direction while acknowledging legal and practical problems. He linked the proposal to a wider agenda of tighter rules, including stricter citizenship requirements planned for introduction next summer.
- Supporters argue permanent status should not be granted lightly. But consultation responses described by the courts suggest the draft text does not clearly separate those who have committed serious offences from those whose only change is time.
Safeguards urged by courts and observers
Several courts urged lawmakers to:
- Continue to require individualised reasons for revocation in each file.
- Demonstrate why revocation is needed and why less intrusive steps would not work.
- Spell out clear safeguards before any switch to a broader revocation model.
Legal commentators also pointed to the administrative burden and the likelihood of a large number of appeals, which could delay decisions and increase uncertainty for those affected.
What happens next
- The proposal is still in the consultation and review phase; nothing in SOU 2025:99 has changed anyone’s status yet.
- The government and supporting parties must decide whether to revise the proposal in light of court criticism and EU-law questions.
- Any final bill could change before a parliamentary vote. If parliament adopts broad revocation powers, legal challenges are likely to follow.
Key takeaway
- The debate has already raised the stakes for people holding permanent residence permits and for those who expect to qualify for them.
- The courts’ pushback increases the chance that lawmakers will have to narrow the proposal or build stronger individual safeguards if they want it to survive Swedish and EU legal tests (analysis by VisaVerge.com).
For official information on residence permits, including the difference between permanent and temporary status, see the Swedish Migration Agency’s guidance at: Migrationsverket.
SOU 2025:99 proposes revoking many permanent residence permits and replacing them with temporary permits from 1 January 2027. The investigator estimated 98,000–180,000 people could be affected, with about 15,000 complex cases needing individual review. Swedish courts warned the plan may violate principles of individual assessment, proportionality and EU law, especially Directive 2003/109/EC and Article 8 of the ECHR. Courts urged clear safeguards, case-by-case reasoning and evidence that less intrusive measures would not suffice. The proposal remains in consultation; no statuses have changed yet.
