Det finns undantag från det allmänna kravet på bygglov. En av dessa undantag, som finns i 9 kap. 3 § plan- och bygglagen, är den för ekonomibyggnader. Ekonomibyggnader definieras inte i någon större utsträckning i plan- och bygglagen, lagen anger dock att ekonomibyggnaden måste vara direkt kopplad till jordbruk, skogsbruk eller andra liknande näring för att vara befriad från det allmänna kravet på bygglov. Det finns däremot en mängd rättsfall där frågan har prövats. Syftet med denna studie är att forma en bild kring begreppet ekonomibyggnad från nuvarande och historisk lag. Studien försöker vidare skapa en kriterielista där bedömningen av en ekonomibyggnad utförs genom att analysera prejudicerande domar samt genom att titta på rättsfall av lägre auktoritet. Genom att rationalisera hur domstolar bedömt har fyra begrepp framkommit, nämligen byggnadens standard, arten av verksamheten, verksamhetens omfattning och självständig verksamhet. Dessa begrepp har betydelse i bedömningen. Med ovanstående kriterielista fastställd undersöker studien kommunala ärenden i hela Sverige för att jämföra dessa med denna lista. Alla svenska kommuner kontaktades via mail i ett försök att samla kommunala ärenden relaterade till ekonomibyggnader. Med en svarsfrist på en månad har totalt 20 ärenden insamlats. En slutsats i denna studie är att en byggnad inte får strida mot något begrepp i kriterielistan i någon större omfattning för att kunna klassas som en ekonomibyggnad. Omfattningen är en tolkningsfråga som kan vägledas av prejudicerande rättsfall eftersom ekonomibyggnaden inte har någon definition. Något som framkommit är att domstolarna ansett att en helhetsbedömning kring begreppen ska utföras i varje enskilt fall. Tillsynen i ärendena har varierat, med en övervikt mot passiv tillsyn. Kommunala förelägganden relaterade till ekonomibyggnader verkar vara relativt ovanliga. Kommunernas hantering av dessa fall varierar även ganska mycket. Vissa lutar sig kraftigt mot prejudicerande domar medan andra kommuner gör sina egna bedömningar. Bedömningen av ekonomibyggnader görs inte på lika villkor i alla kommuner.

Building and city planning is regulated through the Planning and Building Act (PBL). Most buildings require a building permit, these permits are handled by the building committees in each municipality. Recent changes in the Planning and Building Act have, however, given municipalities the possibility to have a shared building committee, which is used to a lesser extent. There are exceptions to the general requirement for a building permit. One of these exceptions, found in 9 kap. 3 § planning and building act, is the one for buildings used for agriculture, forestry or other similar enterprises. This paragraph allows property owners to raise buildings without applying for a building permit or reporting the construction to the building committee. The exception to the rule is not defined to any greater extent in Planning and Building Act. The law does, however, specify that the building needs to be directly connected to agriculture, forestry or other similar enterprises to be exempt from the general need of a building permit. The lack of a closer definition in today's law has forced courts to study older reports and propositions rendered by the Swedish government. The report SOU 1945:15 and the proposition (prop.) 1947:131 have been widely referred to by courts in their attempts to determine whether a building requires a building permit or not according to this exception.These early writings specify that the building has to be needed for the enterprise in question. Buildings such as dairy buildings, slaughterhouses, canning factories, sawmills or greenhouses should not fall under this category according to these writings, because they are to be seen as independent companies with respect to the size of the activity and other circumstances. Because of the lack of a closer definition, determining whether a building falls under this category or not has been an issue. A plethora of court cases exist on the subject with more coming relatively often. The purpose of this study is to form a picture of the exception from current and historical law. It further attempts to form a frame in which the judgement takes place by analyzing precedent set by courts of higher authority as well as by looking at court cases of lesser authority. Four important judgement factors have appeared during the study’s analysis of court cases. The standard of the building is of importance. If the standard is too high or too luxurious, the construction might not be categorized within the exception. Another important judgement factor is the kind of activity that is taking place in the building. This activity needs to be directly connected to agriculture, forestry or other similar enterprises to warrant an exception from a building permit. The extent of the activity is also of importance, both in the building and on the property. If the agriculture on the property, for instance, is being performed to a smaller extent, the judgement might be that there is no enterprise on  iv Bygglovsbefriade ekonomibyggnader – Regelns innebörd och kommunernas handläggning  the property to connect the building to, leading to the requirement of a building permit. If the activity in the actual building is being performed to an extent that is considered as being too large, it might be considered an independent activity, which is the fourth judgement factor. If the activity is independent it is not connected to the enterprise on the property, the building does therefore require a building permit. Important to note, however, is that an extensive evaluation where all factors are considered needs to take place in each separate case. With this frame set and in mind, the study looks at municipal cases throughout Sweden in an attempt to compare these to the frame. All 290 of the Swedish municipalities were contacted through mail in an attempt to gather municipal cases related to the exception. The primary focus has been cases where the municipality ordered the property owner to apply for a building permit after the building was constructed, a permit injunction, and cases where the property owner was ordered to correct what they had done wrong, a correction injunction. Some additional cases other than the aforementioned are presented in the study, however, because they relate to the subject. With a response time of one month, twelve of these municipalities have provided the study with cases where orders related to the exception have been issued. 120 responded that they had not issued any orders related to these buildings. 158 municipalities did not answer during this one month response time. In total, however, twenty cases from 15 different municipalities are investigated, orders or no orders.  One conclusion is that municipal orders related to the exception are relatively rare. Reasons for this might be that there are many unrecorded buildings of this type on the countryside, since several of the municipalities contacted through this study have reported that they do not actively search for these kinds of buildings. Instead they rely on a potential neighbour to report the construction to the building committee. Another conclusion is that the way municipalities handle and report these cases vary quite a bit. Some lean heavily on precedent set by courts, while others attempt to judge the building by their own standards.