Latest decision summaries

  • Date of Decision:12/18/2018 Reg.No:1179-2018

    Försäkringskassan has allegedly violated the statutory requirement on objectivity by rewarding officials who reject many claims

    Read more
  • Date of Decision:12/18/2018 Reg.No:7477-2017

    An investigation of municipalities processing time, in cases pursuant to the Support and Service for Person with Certain Functional Impairments Act (LSS)

    Read more
  • Date of Decision:12/12/2018 Reg.No:242-2017

    The Parliamentary Ombudsmen directs criticism towards the Employment, Financial Assistance and Social Welfare Board in Kramfors municipality for not taking a formal decision on limited custody following a custodian’s request for extended custody

    Read more
  • Date of Decision:12/11/2018 Reg.No:5216-2017

    The Parliamentary Ombudsmen directs criticism towards the Social Welfare Board in Halstahammar municipality for a number of failures when processing a case pursuant to the Support and Service for Person with Certain Functional Impairments Act (LSS)

    Read more
  • Date of Decision:12/5/2018 Reg.No:722-2017

    The Parliamentary Ombudsmen directs criticism towards the Swedish Police Authority for their processing of found passports

    Read more
  • Date of Decision:12/5/2018 Reg.No:1270-2017

    The Parliamentary Ombudsmen directs criticism towards the Social Services Board in Jönköping municipality for failure to investigate and issue decisions due to an aid application for a court-imposed care order

    Read more
  • Date of Decision:12/4/2018 Reg.No:5958-2017

    The Parliamentary Ombudsmen directs criticism towards the Technical Board in Norrköping municipality and the Police Authority for shortcomings in the processing of a permit application to use public land for a terrace area and the revocation of the permit

    Hide information

    Summary

    A restaurant applied to the Police Authority for a permit to expand an existing terrace area. The Technical Board of Norrköping municipality issued a statement on the application and the Police Authority subsequently granted the permit. The board then decided to change its previous statement. The Police Authority revoked the permit with reference to the amended statement.

    In its decision, the Parliamentary Ombudsmen stated that one condition for a permit to use public land must be directed towards the permit holder and formulated in a way to enable compliance. It is important that a decision stipulates what constitutes a condition in the permit. In their statement to the Police Authority, the Technical Board made a reservation that was intended to be such a condition, however it was rather presented as an indication that they intended to act if the design of the terrace proved unsuitable. The board was criticised for the statement being unclear and, in certain instances, subjectively formulated. In addition, the board is criticised for having given the impression that they had the authority to change the permit for the terrace, even though the Police Authority holds this power.

    The Parliamentary Ombudsmen also states that for a municipality to issue a statement on a permit application, it must first thoroughly examine the conditions to support the application. A municipality cannot abstain from the responsibility to investigate and issue a stance on the conditions supporting an application by informing the applicant that certain uncertainties regarding the suitability of the permit exist. The Technical Board is criticised for inadequate processing prior to the statement issued to the Police Authority.

    The Police Authority is criticised for its shortcomings in the permit application processing and that the permit issued by the Authority did not meet the basic requirements for clarity. The Police Authority is also criticised as in email correspondence with the technical board, the case officer gave the impression that the Police Authority would follow the municipality’s request to revoke the permit without conducting an independent evaluation.

  • Date of Decision:12/4/2018 Reg.No:6539-2017

    The Board for Family Law in Solna, Sundbyberg and Ekerö municipalities receives criticism following a failure to inform the parties in a custody enquiry regarding an investigation before it was submitted to the court

    Read more
Search