Latest decision summaries

  • Date of Decision:4/9/2018 Reg.No:1200-2017

    The Parliamentary Ombudsmen directs criticism towards the Committee on Planning and Community Development in Värnamo municipality for having informed a company that a newspaper had requested documents about the company’s business operations

    Read more
  • Date of Decision:3/28/2018 Reg.No:2214-2016

    Enquiry initiated by the Parliamentary Ombudsmen regarding a serious incident of violence at the Swedish Prison and Probation Service’s facility in Salberg

    Read more
  • Date of Decision:3/26/2018 Reg.No:1087-2016

    Enquiry initiated by the Parliamentary Ombudsmen regarding the Swedish Prison and Probation Service’s options on differentiating the treatment of female inmates in its facilities, etc.

    Read more
  • Date of Decision:3/23/2018 Reg.No:494-2016

    The Parliamentary Ombudsmen directs criticism towards the Individual and Family Care Division in Ånge municipality for making contact with a parent via a text message before an information inquiry was provided to the court

    Read more
  • Date of Decision:3/22/2018 Reg.No:7923-2017

    The Administrative Court in Stockholm recieves criticism for a lack of diligence in verifying the court's jurisdiction and at a judge at the Administrative Court for deciding to transfer a case to another administrative court without statutory support

    Read more
  • Date of Decision:3/20/2018 Reg.No:7627-2016

    The Parliamentary Ombudsmen directs criticism towards the headmaster of Nordhemsskolan in Gothenburg municipality

    Read more
  • Date of Decision:3/20/2018 Reg.No:2436-2017

    Disciplinary action for a judge who failed to communicate judgments within the prescribed time limits, in three cases

    Read more
  • Date of Decision:3/16/2018 Reg.No:1692-2016

    The Parliamentary Ombudsmen received a complaint against the Swedish Prison and Probation Service, Hällby facility, regarding video surveillance of inmates

    Hide information

    Summary

    At Hällby facility, which is a facility for male inmates, there is a camera in the room where the inmates change clothes, are frisked and undergo a superficial body inspection before visitation. The report stated that the inmates felt violated standing fully unclothed in front of a camera, not knowing who is viewing the screen in the facility's central security room. In the decision, Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman states that she finds that what the Swedish Prison and Probation Service reports concerning video surveillance constitutes a legitimate purpose as referenced in § 23 of the Video Surveillance Act, and that these purposes weigh heavier than the individual's interest in not being monitored. However, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman considers that, as far as possible, only male staff should be able to view surveillance of inmates via a monitor.

Search