People and companies regularly go to court regarding the Commission’s decisions, what makes you think that does not happen in the EU?
For example Danske Fragtmænd, challenged the Commission's decision that capital injections by Denmark and Sweden into Postnorrd did not constitute unlawful state aid.
and this is not enough to not make the rulemaking by the commission into rulemaking.
I gave the example of their to designate terrorist organization, which as you probably know is a power that is impossible constitutionally in Sweden. The commission has actual authority which is extremely broad and wielded in individual cases.
In Sweden SÄPO (the security police) primarily government entity that designates terror organisations. The leader of SÄPO is a political appointee from Regeringen and the prime minister of Sweden.
In other words the executive branch has rulemaking powers in Sweden according to you.
How is that meaningfully different from how a EU commissioner is appointed?
We do not designate terrorist organizations. SÄPO does not have such a power. The courts interpret the following definition:
>3 § Med terroristorganisation avses i denna lag en sammanslutning av personer som begår eller på annat sätt medverkar till terroristbrott eller gör sig skyldiga till försök, förberedelse eller stämpling till terroristbrott.
Thus the government, SÄPO, the authorities etc. have no power over what is a terrorist organisation. There's designation or possibility of designation. Only the above definition defines it.
Notice that even state organizations of friendly states can in principle be terrorist organizations according to this definition. It's among the most beautiful laws we have.
I was initially opposed to the inquiry to develop this law, because I feared that we'd something deranged, something against our constitution where the government or some authority designates organizations as terrorist and where it's thus a political matter, but we got really lucky. This law is like a pearl, and it's moral delight, so beautiful that one should cry. Actual generality, actual equality before the law, actual apolitical court-based and truth-based, where others have political determinations.
That’s not the relevant law regarding which entity may classify, it deals with the ”yardstick” about what the government and SÄPO can use to be considered one. Did perhaps google translate not work?
The government doesn't proscribe organizations or make decisions about what is a terrorist organization. That is entirely up to the courts.
Who SÄPO consults with has no legal significance. I'm sure they even talk to the Turks.
What you link to relates to the Swedish government's ability to institute sanctions against foreign states and persons. That has nothing to do with what is a terrorist organization in Swedish law. Whether an organization is sanctioned does not affect whether the definition applies.
The commission though, is literally doing things relating to individual cases, and they're politicians directly appointed by European governments.
Simply, it's not rule of law, it's rule by the council.