The case concerned the issue of whether costs for renting extra school premises can constitute extraordinary costs under Section 5 of the Ordinance (2017:193) on state compensation for asylum seekers and others and whether the municipality can request compensation for these expenses from the Migration Agency. In Sweden, a municipality is entitled to state compensation for the costs of asylum seekers and certain other foreigners who have been placed in the municipality under special regulations. In this case, after the Migration Agency established a reception accommodation in Junsele in Sollefteå municipality, the number of children in the area increased and the municipality considered that it was not possible to accommodate them in existing school facilities. As of autumn 2014, the municipality rented a room adjacent to regular school premises from a sports association. At that time, such costs were generally considered to be extraordinary, and not as a cost which the municipality would normally have to cover, as opposed to the costs of regular school premises. However, from the autumn semester of 2017, the Swedish Migration Agency rejected the municipality’s applications for compensation for extraordinary costs related to the renting of the extra school room in Junsele. According to the Migration Agency, to reimburse the costs, the municipality can demonstrate that there has been a need for additional premises and that this need can be linked to specific individuals who need special support.

The first appeal lodged by the municipality before the Administrative Court of Karlstad, was dismissed as the court considered that the scope of extraordinary costs has been reduced in relation to what was in force under the previous regulation and the new wording does not support, in addition to the flat-rate allowance, reimbursement of the costs of school premises not linked to the education of a child in kindergarten or a pupil in need of special support. On second appeal, the Administrative Court of Appeal in Gothenburg confirmed this judgment.

The Supreme Administrative Court overturned the decisions of the Administrative Court of Appeal and the Administrative Court and sent the cases back to the Administrative Court for re-examination. The court noted that the wording in the relevant regulation changed from ‘educational activity’ which was replaced by ‘such education’. The Supreme Administrative Court held that its understanding of the relevant provisions, unlike the one adopted by the lower courts, was that in addition to the flat-rate allowance, a municipality may still be reimbursed for additional costs relating to specific children in kindergartens and pupils in need of special support and, on the other hand, extraordinary costs. It thus considered that it was not necessary that the extraordinary costs be linked to a particular child’s or pupil’s need for special support.