Sweden’s residence permit rules became stricter on 13 July, allowing migration authorities to reject applications or revoke existing permits when a foreign resident is considered not to be living in an “honest and orderly” manner. The assessment may include systematically unpaid debts, illegal employment, misuse of welfare benefits and links to criminal or extremist organisations.
The reform expands the circumstances in which the Swedish Migration Agency (Migrationsverket) can consider a person’s conduct, known in Swedish law as vandel, when deciding whether they may enter or remain in the country.
Unlike the previous framework, the new rules allow authorities to consider behaviour that does not necessarily constitute a criminal offence.
Unpaid debts may affect Sweden residence permits
Under the legislation, migration authorities can consider whether a person has repeatedly ignored debts, fines, taxes or official decisions.
A single debt will not automatically result in the refusal or withdrawal of a permit. However, an exceptionally large unpaid debt, repeated payment failures or a pattern of disregarding fines may contribute to an adverse assessment.
The Swedish Migration Agency has stressed that each case must be examined individually. Officials must weigh the person’s right to remain in Sweden against the public interest in ensuring that foreign residents comply with laws and official decisions.
Other relevant conduct may include undeclared employment, tax evasion, deliberately providing false information to obtain welfare benefits and earning an income through dishonest activities.
The new provisions apply to applications for residence permits and, under certain conditions, to permits that have already been granted. Decisions can be appealed before a migration court.
Criminal and extremist connections can be considered
Authorities may also examine whether an applicant or permit holder is associated with a criminal network or a violent or extremist organisation.
Statements or opinions are not supposed to constitute misconduct on their own. They may, however, be considered as supporting evidence when authorities assess whether a person has operational links to an organisation that threatens public order or security.
Repeated conduct that places other people in danger can also be relevant. Alcohol or drug dependency is not itself treated as a failure of character, but incidents arising from substance abuse may form part of the overall assessment when they repeatedly endanger others.
The government argues that the reform gives migration authorities better tools to respond to behaviour that damages public security or systematically exploits Swedish institutions, even when the conduct does not lead to a criminal conviction.
Begging and prostitution are not grounds on their own
The legislation does not classify begging or prostitution in themselves as failures to meet the conduct requirement.
The government’s proposal recognises that people engaged in prostitution may be victims of trafficking or sexual exploitation. People who beg because of poverty, coercion or exploitation should similarly not face consequences solely on that basis.
Organising exploitative begging, violating local begging restrictions or exploiting another person’s prostitution may still be considered when the behaviour amounts to criminality or dishonest income.
Drug or alcohol addiction is also excluded as an independent reason for refusing a permit.
Legal bodies warned of subjective decisions
The reform has faced criticism from legal institutions, universities and civil rights organisations.
The Swedish Bar Association (Sveriges advokatsamfund), Uppsala University, the Parliamentary Ombudsmen (Justitieombudsmannen, JO) and other consultation bodies warned that the concept of misconduct was not defined precisely enough. Critics said the broad wording could produce subjective, unpredictable or inconsistent assessments.
Several organisations also raised concerns about freedom of expression, privacy, children’s rights and Sweden’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Council on Legislation (Lagrådet), which examines proposed laws before their adoption, noted that the specific forms of conduct covered by the reform were not listed directly in the statutory text.
The government maintains that decisions will be subject to proportionality requirements, international law and judicial review. It also argues that migration authorities already conduct comparable individual assessments in other types of residence cases.
Children and family ties must receive special consideration
Children under the age of 15 cannot be denied a residence permit because of their own conduct.
For people aged between 15 and 17, a negative decision based on misconduct is expected to require particularly serious circumstances, such as repeated serious offences or a major threat to public order or security.
When a decision concerns a parent or another person close to a child, authorities must consider the consequences for the child. The best interests of the child and the foreign resident’s family ties, length of residence and connection to Sweden must form part of the proportionality assessment.
The reform forms part of the Swedish government’s broader effort to tighten migration policy. Its practical impact will depend on how the Migration Agency and migration courts interpret the new conduct requirement, particularly in cases involving non-criminal behaviour and unpaid financial obligations.
