The Swedish Parliamentary Ombudsmen (JO)

Latest decision summaries

• Date of Decision:1/20/2021 Decision Case Number:8077-2018

  The Parliamentary Ombudsman directs criticism towards Karolinska University Hospital in Solna municipality for lacking guidelines to handle incidents where a patient may have been exposed to a crime at the care facility

  Read more

  Summary

  In the light of information in a newspaper article, that a patient at Karolinska University Hospital in Solna municipality was suspected of having exposed another patient to a crime, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman decided to investigate both the incident in question and the hospital's routines for such an occurrence.
  
  In the decision, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman notes that the healthcare staff, based on the circumstances described, handled the situation that arose in the best possible way, in consideration of the fact that they had no guidelines to follow. The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman states that guidelines or routines, regarding what measures should be taken, when suspicion arise that a patient has been exposed to a crime are necessary for a care institution, to be able to ensure patients' safety and moreover to ensure that patients who have been exposed to a crime receive the best possible care. Such guidelines are also necessary to ensure that incidents are handled pursuant to the rule of law. The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman directs criticism towards Karolinska University Hospital for lacking guidelines in this area.

• Date of Decision:11/20/2020 Decision Case Number:1936-2019

  The Parliamentary Ombudsman directs severe criticism towards a Chief Medical Officer for handing over confidential data to the Police Authority and the Enforcement Authority

  Read more

  Summary

  During a body search at a clinic for forensic psychiatric care a large amount of money was found. The chief medical officer made a police report of an attempt to escape and also informed the Enforcement Authority of the money and in both cases provided certain information about the patient's personal circumstances.
  
  The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman states that the information provided to the police and the Enforcement Authority, regarding the patient, was covered by secrecy and that the patient had not given his consent to the information being disclosed. In the decision however, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman makes certain statements of when healthcare staff may give out confidential data, under certain conditions, to other authorities, e.g. if the information concerns suspicion of a crime of a certain seriousness or if it is necessary for the issuing authority to be able to carry out its activities. The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman states that attempts to escape are not a crime of the kind that allows for information to be provided to the police, and that it was not necessary to disclose the relevant information in order for the clinic to be able to carry out its activities. Thus, no breach of confidentiality was applicable when the information was disclosed.
  
  Furthermore, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman states that she understands that secrecy legislation can cause problems for healthcare professionals. In this case, the chief medical officer had tried to find out what legal possibilities there were to disclose the relevant information. However, his investigations did not lead to a clear statement on the issue of confidentiality. The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman emphasizes the importance of the legislation that govern healthcare secrecy, which also is of significance to uphold credibility; and directs severe criticism towards the chief medical officer for deciding that the information should be handed out even though he was aware of the fact that the information he disclosed could violate the confidentiality regulations.

• Date of Decision:11/17/2020 Decision Case Number:3103-2018

  During a lecture at an Upper-Secondary School, two police officers gave out certain information regarding individuals who had been convicted of a crime, which is in violation of the European Convention

  Read more

  Summary

  Two police officers gave a lecture about the police's investigative activities at an Upper-Secondary School. During the lecture, the police officers gave out certain information regarding a completed criminal investigation that they themselves had been involved in. The police officers provided information on e.g. names of individuals who appeared in the investigation, and moreover the names of the individuals who had been convicted of a crime. In the audience was a student who was the daughter of one of the persons mentioned by the police.
  
  The names of the individuals who were involved in the criminal investigation had become public when charges were brought against them. The fact that the person’s names had become public meant that classified information was not disclosed at the lecture, however, according to the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s understanding, to provide information that they had been convicted of a crime goes against the protection of private and family life, pursuant to Article 8 of the European Convention. The Parliamentary Ombudsman directs criticism towards the Police Authority for the occurrence.
  
  In the decision, the Parliamentary Ombudsman makes certain statements regarding what considerations the Police Authority should make before informing about police activities at e.g. lectures and similar contexts.

• Date of Decision:11/17/2020 Decision Case Number:3562-2019

  The Parliamentary Ombudsman directs criticism towards a Judge at Falu District Court for e.g. the administration of confidential data in a civil case

  Read more

  Summary

  AA, who’s identity was confidential, was a party in a civil case at a district court. In the execution of the decision the custody of the children AA and BB was distributed. The custody of the children should, pursuant to the decision, be initiated in a so-called custody venue in a certain municipality and AA should leave and collect BB at the venue. An appendix to the decision included AA’s name, personal identity number and box-address. The decision did not include a confidentiality settlement. The Parliamentary Ombudsman makes certain statements pursuant to chapter 21, section 3 of the Public Access to Information and Secrecy Act in regards to the applicability to the box-address and of the meaning of including an appendix to a decision.  The Parliamentary Ombudsman directs criticism towards the judge as AA’s confidential data became public, due to the lack of a confidentiality settlement. The judge also receives criticism as the decision did not include a settlement on custody support pursuant to chapter 6, section 15 c of the Parents Code and for, due to this error, ambiguities in the decision. According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman understanding, it is not possible to rule out that the design of the courts' case management system Vera and how an appendix is drawn up and linked to a decision, may explain errors in matters regarding confidentiality. For that reason, among other things, the Parliamentary Ombudsman will send a copy of the decision to the National Courts Administration for knowledge.

• Date of Decision:11/12/2020 Decision Case Number:277-2018

  Enquiry regarding conditions for detainees held in security placements within the Prison and Probation Service

  Read more

  Summary

  For many years, the Parliamentary Ombudsmen has examined the conditions for detainees placed in the Prison and Probation Service. The reviews have led to several critical statements by the Parliamentary Ombudsman and to the government being repeatedly reminded of the need to change the existing regulations. Sweden has also been recommended, by the international community, to stop the placement of detainees, who have been detained with the support of the Aliens Act, within the Prison and Probation Service.
  
  Following upon the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman inspection of several prions, within the framework of the operations of the Opcat unit during winter of 2017, she decided to conduct an examination of the conditions for detainees, who have been placed in a security placement within the Prions and Probation Service.
  
  In the decision, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman states that it is clear that the Prison and Probation Service has not succeeded in creating the practical conditions required for all detainees staying in prisons and institutions, to be able to meet their statutory rights. According to the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman understanding, the situation for those placed in security placements appears to be particularly worrying. That the Prison and Probation Service has not come further in its work is viewed as a severe deficiency and she directs criticism towards the authority for the fact that the detainees' statutory rights are still not met.
  
  In the opinion of the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman, the government must review how the regulations for detainees work in practice. It should also be clarified how the detainees' statutory rights can be met. The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman also states that there is reason to question whether detainees who have not been deported should be placed within the Prison and Probation Service at all. If this is nevertheless considered appropriate, the regulation of their rights need to be clarified, e.g. regarding the right to associate with others and contact with the outside world. Against this background, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman finds reason to, pursuant to section 4 of the Act with Instructions for the Parliamentary Ombudsmen, hand over the decision to the government, to request a review of the legislation. Furthermore, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman reminds the Prison and Probation Service of previous decisions made in terms of e.g. the need for a legalised review procedure and for guarantees that detainees are not put in security placements when there are no legal preconditions for it.

• Date of Decision:11/9/2020 Decision Case Number:8490-2018

  The Parliamentary Ombudsman directs criticism towards the Financial Supervisory Authority for deficient documentation and poorly formulated guidelines

  Read more

  Summary

  In an enquiry the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman has investigated six cases at the Financial Supervisory Authority. The authority is criticised in several respects for not complying with their internal guidelines. Shortcomings have been noted in the investigated cases when it comes to documentation of decisions to initiate and close cases and of decisions to continue processing. It is also noted that a so-called memorandum to conduct an examination have not been filed in any of the investigated cases, despite of the fact that such memorandums should be documented in line with the authority’s guidelines. According to the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman’s understanding it is startling that the Financial Supervisory Authority has not been able to provide a satisfactory explanation as to why deviations have been made from the internal guidelines in the examined cases.
  
  The identified shortcomings in the documentation, as well as certain deviancies in the formulations of the internal guidelines, have led to ambiguities as to when the authority considers that a case has been closed. The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman emphasizes that these shortcomings may affect how a request to disclose documents is assessed and that, in her opinion, they have entailed a risk to limit public access to documents and public transparency.
  
  Finally, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman makes certain statements regarding the authority’s use of so-called final letters.

• Date of Decision:11/4/2020 Decision Case Number:1941-2019

  The Parliamentary Ombudsman directs criticism towards Arbetsförmedlingen for delaying to submit a re-examination

  Read more

  Summary

  A participator in a labour market policy program had applied for a recess from the activity, due to an upcoming Christmas holiday. The application was rejected in the beginning of December. Two days later the participator requested a re-examination of the decision. It took three months, until March of the following year, until Arbetsförmedlingen processed the request and handed in the re-examination of the decision.
  
  The Parliamentary Ombudsman notes that a request for a re-examination holds many similarities to an appeal and that an appeal, that is not to be rejected due to a regular basis, shall be handed in to a higher court within a week. In line with previous statements by the Parliamentary Ombudsman, there is no valid reason to accept a longer period than that when a case is to be submitted for reconsideration within the same authority. In addition, when the re-examination, as in this case, concern a matter that loses its significance after a certain period of time, the individual should be able to expect that the re-examination is handed in as soon as possible.
  
  The Parliamentary Ombudsman directs criticism towards Arbetsförmedlingen for delaying to submit a re-examination in due time.

• Date of Decision:11/2/2020 Decision Case Number:3224-2019

  The Parliamentary Ombudsman directs criticism towards the Social Care Board in Avesta municipality for using a digital communication service when contacting an individual without considering the legal prerequisites

  Read more

  Summary

  A 14 year old girl was taken into care pursuant to the Care of Young Persons Act, in April 2019 she escaped from the residential home where she was placed. She was found three weeks later. During the time she was away, the administration communicated with her via the digital communication service Snapchat.
  
  The Parliamentary Ombudsman states that it is the responsibility of the Social Services to ensure, in each individual case, that a digital communication service is used in such a way that it is not in conflict with the regulations governing the handling of data. As the administration, in this case, had not investigated the legal conditions for using the digital communication service Snapchat, the Parliamentary Ombudsman states that the administration should have refrained from using the service. Despite this, the service was used on several occasions to, for example, give the girl information covered by chapter 26, section 1 of the Public Access to Information and Secrecy Act. The Parliamentary Ombudsman views this as unacceptable and directs criticism towards the Social Care Board.