The Swedish Parliamentary Ombudsmen (JO)

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

  Summary

  A journalist was granted the right to visit an inmate at Tidaholm prison and in connection to the visit bring an audio recording device to the prison. The decision stated that the memory card of the device would be checked before and after the visit.
  
  In a complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, a question was raised if the Prison and Probation Service’s provision on General Conditions on Prisons, chapter 7, section 9, prohibits a visitor to record sound and image at a prison, without the authority’s permission, and if it is in accordance to the freedom to communicate information. The complainant also inquired if it pursuant to the freedom to communicate information and the censorship ban to take a decision to monitor audio recordings that journalists make in prisons.   
  
  In the decision the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman states that the freedom to communicate information cannot be invoked as a general cause for insight and that an individual, in addition to authorities’ statutory requirement on service duty and the obligation to disclose documents, does not hold the right to demand information from the public. The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman states that the freedom to communicate information does not limit authorities’ right to prohibit access or set up conditions as long as the conditions does not impose on collecting information of certain kind. The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman concludes that the regulation, pursuant to chapter 7, section 9 of the Prison and Probation Service General Conditions on Prisons, does not impose on the statute-regulated right to access certain information.
  
  Regarding the question of whether the decision to monitor the journalist's memory card violated the censorship ban and the freedom to communicate information the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman notes, among other things, that the censorship ban, disregarding the censorship of films to be shown publicly to persons under the age of 15, basically applies without exceptions. The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman states that the Prison and Probation Service’s decision contravened the censorship ban and therefore the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman directs criticism towards the prison. Moreover, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman states that the design of the decision raises questions as to whether the decision can be considered to have been in accordance with the freedom to communicate information. However, in light of the fact that the Prison and Probation Service allowed the journalist to interview the inmate, and in this way obtain information, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman does not find sufficient reason to make any further statements in the case.

• 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

  Summary

  A psychiatric clinic where patients are under care pursuant to the Forensic Mental Care Act, primarily, applied a code of conduct which entailed a general ban on certain verbal communication between patients and certain property.  
  
  The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman considers that the current ban on certain verbal communication, limits, to some degree, the freedom of speech pursuant to chapter 2, section 1, of the Instrument of Government. A limitation of a constitutional regulated right postulate that the limitation holds legal support, in this matter this was not the case. The codes of conduct that the clinic applied thereby lacked legal support. The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman directs severe criticism towards the clinic. However, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman further states that there may be valid prerequisites, within a separate case, to limit verbal communication. 
  
  When it comes to banning the possession of records the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman notes that there is no legal support to restrict a patient’s right to possess certain property. In this respect, the clinic has made up regulations that lack legal support. The clinic receives severe criticism also due to this fact. Regarding the requirement on legality and predictability the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman holds that the statute regulated possibility to prohibit the possession of certain items does not entail prohibiting keeping records in a separate case.  
  
  A decision to ban certain property cannot be appealed. The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman considers that a capacity to appeal such a decision would, among other things, enhance an increased rule of law for inmates within psychiatric care and forensic psychiatric care. According to the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman’s understanding, the regulatory framework for patients' property ownership needs to be subject to review. Therefore, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman will propose, to the government, to initiate a review of the legislation.

• 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

  Summary

  A man had been granted a certain support pursuant to chapter 9, section 9 of the Support and Service for Person with Certain Functional Impairments Act. The man had an administrator to safeguard his rights.
  
  On several occasions, the man informed the social welfare board’s case officer that he was not happy with his residence, and that he did not wish to live there and that he would like another place to live. At other occasions the man expressed that he enjoyed the housing.
  
  Support pursuant to the Support and Service for Person with Certain Functional Impairments Act is based on the requests of an individual. The man’s wishes to receive support was accordingly decisive for the continuation of the support. In the decision, the Parliamentary Ombudsman express that the authority, in a situation such as the current case, when there is ambivalence, tries to motivate the individual to continue to receive support. The processing of the case demonstrated respect for the man’s self-determination and well-established partnership between the man, his administrator and the board.
  
  A matter that was raised during the investigation regarded the repeated contacts that the man had with the board and if these contacts expressed a wish to apply for aid and if the board thereby should have inquired if the man wished to apply for support pursuant to the Social Service Act. According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s understanding the man had expressed himself in such a way that the case officer should have asked him if he wished to apply for aid.
  
  The board seems to have been of the notion that it was up to the man’s administrator to apply for support. Regardless of an administrator’s commitments, an individual may, in certain situations, have their own independence. The Parliamentary Ombudsman express that support pursuant to the Social Service Act entails that an individual should be granted certain independence, in spite of the fact that there is an appointed administrator. Therefore, it was not enough to refer him to his administrator to discuss the matter.
  
  By not clarifying if the man wished to apply for support, the board failed in their processing.

• 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

  Summary

  Within the framework of an investigation regarding two siblings, a social welfare worker collected the siblings at their pre-school and took them to a venue that belonged to the social services. The guardians had not consented to the measure. Thereafter the social welfare worker contacted the children’s father, but not the children’s mother. The children were then left with their father.
  
  In an investigation on child welfare, a child may be heard without the guardians consent and without them being present, pursuant to chapter 11, section 10 of the Social Service Act.
  
  The Parliamentary Ombudsman notes that the provision does not convey that the social welfare board may collect a child and bring a child to a place that the board see as a suitable place to hold a talk with the child concerned. A guardian or a representative of a child need to give their consent before a board collects a child. Pursuant to the Care of Young Persons Act, a board is allowed, during some circumstances, to collect a child.
  
  In the current case, the guardians had not given their consent to have the children collected by the board and the children were not subject to an intervention pursuant to the Care of Young Persons Act. Accordingly, the board’s measures did not have any legal support.
  
  A child’s guardians hold the right and obligation to decide on a child’s personal matters, e.g. the child´s residence, pursuant to the Children and Parents Code. Thus, it is not up to the board to decide where a child should reside. If a child is under care pursuant to the Care of Young Persons Act, the board shall decide where the child shall reside during the time in care.
  
  In the decision, the Parliamentary Ombudsman states that the occurrence resulted in the children residing with their fathers instead of their mother. If the board had decided that it was not in the best interests of the children to reside with their mother the board should have consulted all guardians to try to find solutions regarding the children’s residence, but this did not occur. According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s understanding the management contradicted the statute-regulated requirements on objectivity pursuant to the Instrument of Government.
  
  The Parliamentary Ombudsman directs severe criticism towards the board for the processing of the children’s case.

• 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

  Summary

  Sweden has received international criticism for a long time due to inmates’ conditions in Swedish remand prisons. The criticism concerns, primarily, the fact that inmates with restrictions are put in isolation and thereby in a situation that may risk their mental and physical health. The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman has, since 2017, examined cases of inmates in remand prisons put in isolation. In the decision, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman states that isolation risks including not merely a remand prisoner with restrictions, but also inmates at the remand prison with the right to associate with other inmates during daytime. Pursuant to the Prison and Probation Service own surveys in 2018; 83 percent of inmates with restrictions and 33 percent of inmates with the right to associate with others were put in isolation. In the decision the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman holds
  • that the Prison and Probation Service’s remand prions lack common areas and staff members to implement inmates’ right to associate with others. The Prison and Probation Service receives very severe criticism for the continues lack of resources in this area
  • that she is very critical towards the fact that the Prison and Probation Service has not put more efforts into measures to prevent isolation
  • that it is very urgent that the Prison and Probation Service introduce a system to enable a process to prevent that inmates are put in isolation
  
  In the decision the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman also raise a question to review, among other things, the Detention Act, to clarify inmates’ rights and prevent isolation.

• 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

  Summary

  An employee at a health care centre disclosed certain data from a patient’s journal during a telephone call to a social welfare worker as the social welfare worker stated that the individual had consented to handing out the data. According to a standardised entry that the individual had signed, the social welfare board was granted the ability to disclose data, from among others, the region, that concerned the individual’s case and that was necessary for the processing of the case. The entry did not specify what case or region that was included.
  
  The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman express that she holds great understanding of the fact that authorities, on a daily basis, trust instructions from other authorities. When it comes to disclosing data that is included in a patient’s journal, and which usually are of a sensitive matter, the caregiver should make sure that the concerned individuals have consented to the disclosure of data. The caregiver is able to check the documented consent or contact the individual in question. The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman is critical towards the fact that the caregiver, in this case, did not take any measures to ensure that the individual had given his/hers consent to disclose data.
  
  Moreover, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman holds that the documented entry is formulated in such a broad manner that the individual could not embrace the scope of the consequences of the consent. According to the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman’s understanding, a consent that appears as too broad, when an authority considers handing out confidential data, should lead to a contact with the concerned individual, to make sure that he or she has given their consent to disclose data in the separate case.

• 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

  Read more

  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

  Summary

  By mistake, the Migration Agency sent only the first page of a decision to an applicant’s representative when it was dispatched. From the document, one could easily have the impression that the decision document consisted of only a single page (1/1 noted at the top right of the decision document). However, the decision consisted of four pages.
  
  The Migration Agency is criticised for having sent out an incomplete version of the decision to the representative and for the long amount of time that passed before the mistake was noticed. The Migration Agency is also criticised for the fact that it was not evident, in the document, that the copy of the decision was not the full version. The Parliamentary Ombudsman is further critical of the fact that the Migration Agency has a document management system that makes it possible to send out the first page of a decision document without explicitly stating that only one of several pages of the document is being sent. The Parliamentary Ombudsman holds that it is a serious situation that information in a decision, in this case page numbering, can be changed retrospectively if it is not a matter of a correction. A decision document must be complete and unchangeable once it has been dispatched.