the svea court of appeal in the early modern period 30 was firmly established and the appeal system confirmed. Indeed, the unification took largely place by the central power monitoring the activities of the lower courts.39 Göran Inger considered the “control function” of the courts of appeal over the lower courts of paramount significance to the Swedish legal development through the creation of a uniform legal practice within the jurisdiction of each court of appeal.40 Indeed, the monitoring done by the courts of appeal resulted in more uniform legal practice within the jurisdiction district by the appeal system and the submission of a large portion of capital penalties to the scrutiny of the superior court. Judges were required to send in their written court records for inspection annually. The lower courts were to base their decisions on the law, which reduced their traditional discretionary powers.41 In addition, royal officials were investigated and impeached at the courts of appeal for wrongdoings or dereliction of duty, and incompetent or venal judges were charged with misconduct and punished and replaced if found guilty. To what extent the establishment of the courts of appeal contributed to the formation of a modern legal system is more disputed.42 Indeed, researchers have also emphasized the stratification of the Swedish court system as the courts of appeal became the privileged courts of the nobility, largely staffed by other noblemen who judged their peers.43 What is undoubtedly true is that it contributed to the professionalization of lawyers. Once the use of advocates was permitted in 1615, the Svea Court of Appeal quickly attracted such attorneys affiliated with the Court.44 By star39 E.g., Thunander, Rudolf 1993 esp. pp. 6-15. See also the textbooks of Kekkonen, Jukka 2002 pp. 64-65; Kekkonen, Jukka 2002 p. 18. 40 Inger, Göran 1986 p. 71. 41 Rättegångs-Ordinantie (1614), Kongl. stadgar, ed. Schmedeman, p. 139; Petrén, Sture 1964 pp. 3-45. 42 Heikki Pihlajamäki and Anu Pylkkänen (1999 p. 279) have denied the modernity of the system, while Jukka Kekkonen considers that not merely a “quintessential shift from traditional to premodern or partly even towards modern administration of justice” (olennainen siirtymä traditionaalisesta esimoderniin tai osin jopa modernin oikeudenkäytön suuntaan) took place during the seventeenth century. Kekkonen means the shift from communitarian towards a state-controlled and a professionalizing system in particular, although he emphasises the slowness of the change in practice and the local variations; Kekkonen, Jukka 2002, p. 19. 43 Kekkonen, Jukka 2002, p. 18; Kekkonen, Jukka 2002 p. 65. 44 Rättegångs-Process, 23 June 1615, Kongl. stadgar, ed. Schmedeman, pp. 152-153; Petrén, Sture 1947 pp. 1-25; Letto-Vanamo, Pia 1989 esp. pp. 14-20, 23-26, 33-63, 175-222.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=