The Parliamentary Ombudsmen (JO) are appointed by the Swedish Riksdag (parliament) to ensure that public authorities and their staff comply with the laws and other statutes governing their actions.
T.E. was apprehended due to intoxication. T.E. refused to provide his identification and was accordingly recorded as ‘unknown’ when arriving at the arrest. At several occasions, a guard at the arrest asked T.E. to provide his personal identity number, for his own good. When T.E. asked what would happen if he did not provide his identification he was informed that it might lead to an extension of the apprehension. The guard also told T.E. that an apprehension due to intoxication usually lasts for 6 to 8 hours, but that he could possibly release T.E. earlier than that if T.E. provided his personal identification number. T.E. became frightened and gave up his name, address and personal identification number. A person that is apprehended due to intoxication is not obligated to provide their identification, and the police cannot use coercive measures to establish a person’s identity. The Parliamentary Ombudsmen states that the information T.E. received regarding the possibility of extending T.E.’s apprehension if he did not provide the guard with his personal identification number lacked legal support. According to the Parliamentary Ombudsmen, what has occurred is unacceptable. Moreover, the Parliamentary Ombudsmen holds that the Police Authority is responsible to see to it that employees at a police’s arrest are adequately educated to be able to conduct their job in a competent manner.
The Parliamentary Ombudsmen directs criticism towards the Police Authority for the occurrence.
During March of 2015, the Municipal Board of Storfors municipality ended C.D.’s institutional care as well as rejected his application on treatment assistance. C.D. appealed the Municipal Board’s decision. In September of 2015, the Administrative Court in Karlstad remanded the case to the municipality for further examination and decision on which treatment methods C.D. could receive to be able to eliminate his substance abuse. The Administrative Court stated in their reasoning that C.D. was in need of care to be able to manage his addiction and to sustain a reasonable standard of living. The Administrative Court’s decision was appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal in Göteborg that decided, in December of 2015, not to announce a leave to appeal. The Administrative Court took a decision on treatment assistance in July 2016.
As the Municipal Board disregarded to promptly examine and take a decision in compliance with the Administrative Court’s decision, they neglected to insure that C.D. received the care and assistance he needed, as well as sustained a reasonable standard of living. The Parliamentary Ombudsmen directs severe criticism towards the Municipal Board of Storfors municipality for the processing of this case.
The Administrative Court of Appeal in Sundsvall decided upon a judgement during a deliberation to end a patient’s psychiatric compulsory treatment. The judgement was not announced until the following day. In the decision, the Parliamentary Ombudsmen directs criticism towards the judges responsible for the delay.
The Parliamentary Ombudsmen directs criticism towards the Employment and Social Welfare Board in Karlstad municipality for, in the present case, not administrating the care of a boy cared for in a manner that supported his relationship to his mother, pursuant to the Care of Young Persons Act (LVU).
An investigation by the Social Welfare Board regarding the need to intervene to protect or care for a child should be carried out promptly and executed within four months. If there are special circumstances the Social Welfare Board may extend the time period of the investigation pursuant to chapter 11, section 2 of the Social Services Act [2001:453] (SoL).
The regulation is a general provision when processing a case on child welfare. In the present case, the Social Welfare Board in Säter municipality carried out three child welfare cases subsequently, during a total time period of more than one year. The two latter investigations were initiated upon the conclusion of the proceeding investigation. The Parliamentary Ombudsmen holds that the Social Welfare Board did not endorse the purpose of the provision when the board conducted several investigations of one family on a reoccurring basis, where the investigation essentially concerned the same circumstance. The Parliamentary Ombudsmen also notes that the Social Welfare Board should not conclude an investigation and immediately initiate a new investigation to be able to extend the time period for the investigation. The respite of four months thereby becomes ineffectual. The Parliamentary Ombudsmen directs severe criticism towards the Social Welfare Board for not administrating cases on child welfare pursuant to the general provision’s regulation of four months.
During autumn of 2015 a counselor, employed at a municipal school within Huddinge municipality, liked a photograph using his private Facebook account. The Facebook status was later republished and commented on by the organisation Anti Fascist Forum Stockholm. The status included photographs of two persons deceased during the Trollhättan school attack and a request to hold named right-wing politicians and journalists responsible.
Due to the occurrence the Chairman of the Upper-Secondary School Committee in Huddinge municipality, Christina Eklund (also councillor of the Municipal Council) got in contact with the principal of the school where the counselor was employed. On the 24th of October, 2015, Christina Eklund met with the principal.
In November of 2015 politician S.P. directed a question to the Municipal Council in Huddinge municipality and asked if the counselor’s actions, to publicly approve the Anti Fascist Forum Stockholm opinion that certain politicians and journalists were murderers, were in line with the school and municipality’s values. He wanted to look into the possibility of releasing the counselor from his employment. In an official letter, on December 4th, 2015, Christina Eklund replied to S.P.’s question and stated that the counselor’s Facebook post was “clearly unsuitable”.
According to the Parliamentary Ombudsmen’s understanding, Christina Eklund’s meeting with the principal did not constitute any victimisation. However, the Parliamentary Ombudsmen holds that Christina Eklund’s statement, in the official letter dated December 4th, where she stated that the counselor’s post was “clearly unsuitable” infringed the counselor’s freedom of speech, pursuant to Chapter 2, section 1 § 1 of the Instrument of Government. The Parliamentary Ombudsmen directs criticism towards the formation of the official letter.
R.S. applied for child benefits on the 4th of February 2016. On the 18th of March 2016, he also handed in information regarding the investigation of his wife M.S.’s case on insurance affiliation. Försäkringskassan did not initiate the case on insurance affiliation until four and a half month had passed. M.S. received insurance affiliation in Sweden on the 18th of August 2016 but it was not until the 6th of February 2017 that Försäkringskassan took a decision on R.S.’s case. The Parliamentary Ombudsmen notes that Försäkringskassan’s slow processing was not due to difficulties in obtaining documents from a foreign country, which the Parliamentary Ombudsmen has recognized in previous cases, but due to Försäkringskassan’s own lack of initiative.
Visit from South Korea on November 24, a delegation from the Seoul City Audit Committee
Representatives from the Baltic and Nordic Ombudsmen met in Stockholm to exchange experiences and ideas.
The Parliamentary Ombudsmen's overall statements for each supervisory area the year 2015/16.
The Swedish Parliamentary Ombudsmen - JOBox 16327 • SE-103 26 Stockholm • SwedenVisiting Address: Västra Trädgårdsgatan 4 AOpening hours: 9.00–12.00, 13.00–15.00