“It has been a long process and I am glad that it is now a finish, and even happier that it was to our advantage,” says kommunstyrelseordförande Carina Wutzler (M).
”the Supreme administrative court repeals the administrative court ruling and förvaltningsrättens and the county administrative board’s decisions,” writes the court. The lower courts considered that. ” not been able to motivate enough to beggary caused the interference, but the supreme court says that the support is missing in the public order act to ”establish a requirement that the municipality must show that there has been such up the city that justifies a ban would be introduced”.
Previously Vellinge consistently been refused, first by county, then by the administrative court and the administrative court of appeal.
Video:: Good to tiggeriförbudet has been tested to the highest instance
– the Supreme administrative court reasons that we made, and that SALAR also did, in his opinion, that the municipalities have the opportunity to make judgments about begging in the public order. We limited the prohibition to certain places are limited it is not on the people’s freedom, ” says Carina Wutzler.
towards begging in certain distinct places in the municipality – Vellinge, sweden, Skanör and Höllviken – and justifies it on the grounds that the local residents find it uncomfortable to go to the shops, where the beggars sit.
the Municipality has also asserted that the beggar is causing the interference through the ”repeated urination and littering in public places”.
In Kungsbacka, sweden, where the municipality decided to introduce a licence for passive fundraising, welcomed the ruling.
” I have not had time to read the judgment, but it sounds well good. We have enjoyed it all the time, to the municipalities themselves to take in such points of order, ” says Hans Forsberg (M), with the president in Kungsbacka, sweden.
Kungsbacka, sweden has received its decision was repealed by the county board, but had already decided to appeal.
– We have up the case in the morning and to appeal the county decision. The county board had comments on our local ordinances on six different points and we’ll complain about five of them, ” says Forsberg. We win not ear we must take a new decision then. Well, we’ll see how it develops. There are many municipalities that have been nosing on this.
tried Vellinges the introduction of tiggeriförbud in the local ordningsstadgan has considered that the municipality failed to show that beggary disturb the public order.
“I know that the whole Kommunsverige and even many on the national level are very curious about how the decision will be,” says Wutzler.
Jimmy Jansson (S), chairman of the municipal council in Eskilstuna, sweden, notes that the municipality of Vellinge now scored yes to a different model than the one that Eskilstuna municipality chosen. In Eskilstuna awaits the municipality on a decision from the court on their model with the licensing requirements and fee for begging shall be approved.
– In practice, we are trying to accomplish the same thing, but we do it on the basis of existing legislation. Our is for justice, we are waiting for a decision during the winter.
Read more: Vellinges tiggeriförbud be tried in the Supreme administrative court
He now believe that many municipalities will take a closer look at Vellinges model with a ban.
” We want to see where our proposal takes the road, we have chosen a more complicated path with the licence. But I believe that many municipalities will look at the opportunities that are now available.
Eskilstuna municipality has a problem with settlements where the people begging, living in the forest.
” We contend locally with this. But the politicians in parliament have not taken any initiative, ” says Jimmy Jansson.
Vellinges the city council decided on 20 september last year to introduce tiggeriförbud in some areas. It was M’s proposal with the support of the SD and L reached the voting figures 39 to 12.
the geographical restriction, the reasoning of the Supreme administrative court, allows Vellinges decision is too far-reaching to the public. For fund-raising ”in guns or similar” requires the municipality a permit, but the court believes that the municipality’s formulation of the ”begging” clarifies what it is about, and to, for example, it is clearly separated from the collection to the charities.
