Criticism of Finspång Municipality for its processing of a case involving the suspension of a child from compulsory school

Summary of the decision: The headteacher of a school in Finspång Municipality decided to suspend a pupil. The suspension decision was initially conveyed to the child’s parents verbally and was sent in writing three days later. Among other errors, the written decision did not include the date of the decision, the start and end dates of the suspension, or instructions for lodging an appeal. An operations manager at the municipality subsequently incorrectly informed the parents that it was not possible to appeal against the headteacher’s suspension decision, hence there was no reference to this in the decision. The parents did not receive a written decision with the start and end dates of the suspension and appeal instructions until after the suspension had ended.

Among other things, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman notes that a suspension decision is an intervention in a private interest and can be appealed. According to the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman, in most cases such a decision must be made in writing. The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman specifically underlines the importance of notifying an individual of the full content of the decision, including correct information about how to lodge an appeal.

In his decision, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman directs criticism at the municipality’s processing of the case. The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman states that the first written decision cannot be deemed to fulfil the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (SFS 2017:900). The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman also takes a grave view of the fact that a representative of the municipality gave incorrect information about the possibility of appealing a decision involving an intervention as sensitive as suspending a pupil from school. According to the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman, the fact that appeal instructions were not provided until after the suspension had ended is unacceptable and can be assumed to involve the risk of the deprivation of rights.