Latest decision summaries

  • Date of Decision:2/12/2020 Decision Case Number:3892-2018

    The Parliamentary Ombudsman directs criticism towards the Prison and Probation Service, Tidaholm prison, for communicating a decision that goes against the statutory regulated ban on censorship of the freedom of speech

    Read more
  • Date of Decision:2/11/2020 Decision Case Number:5634-2017

    The Parliamentary Ombudsman directs severe criticism towards the Forensic Psychiatric Care Section in Stockholm for setting up codes of conduct that impose a general ban against verbal communication between patients among other things

    Read more
  • Date of Decision:2/11/2020 Decision Case Number:5875-2018

    The Parliamentary Ombudsman directs criticism towards the Social Welfare Board in Flen municipality for not inquiring about an individual’s need to apply for financial assistance pursuant to the Social Service Act

    Read more
  • Date of Decision:2/10/2020 Decision Case Number:3233-2018

    The Parliamentary Ombudsman directs severe criticism towards the Social Welfare Board in Olofström municipality for collecting and bringing two siblings to a venue that belonged to the social services, without obtaining the guardians’ consent

    Read more
  • Date of Decision:2/5/2020 Decision Case Number:O 7-2018

    The Parliamentary Ombudsman directs severe criticism towards the Prison and Probation Service

    Read more
  • Date of Decision:1/31/2020 Decision Case Number:7504-2018

    The Parliamentary Ombudsman directs criticism towards Nävertorp health care centre, region Sörmland, for responding to a request to disclose data from a patient’s journal without collecting the patient´s consent

    Read more
  • Date of Decision:1/28/2020 Decision Case Number:3965-2019

    Processing times at the Police Authority have become unacceptably long in two cases on contested payments regarding parking fines

    Hide information

    Summary

    The Parliamentary Ombudsman has investigated two cases at the Police Authority concerning contested payments regarding parking fines. The facts in each case were clear and there were no need for supplements or other information. The processing time of one of the cases was more than one year and more than two years in the other. During most of this time, no one worked on the cases.

    The cases were processed at the Police Authority’s legal unit, unit South. The investigation shows that the legal unit has a large number of cases due to be settled, and that the processing time of the cases holds a time span of around two years. The Parliamentary Ombudsman directs criticism towards the Police Authority for the slow and passive processing of the cases, which contravene the provisions in the Administrative Procedure Act regarding case management and how long the processing of a case may take.

    The Police Authority has tried to correct the situation regarding the long processing times. The Parliamentary Ombudsman hold that the situation is concerning and that the authority should collect the resources of the legal unit to make sure that a structure is completed to reach acceptable processing times.

  • Date of Decision:1/27/2020 Decision Case Number:7177-2018

    The Parliamentary Ombudsman directs criticism towards the Migration Agency for dispatching an incomplete copy of a decision to an applicant’s representative

    Read more
Search