The Swedish Parliamentary Ombudsmen (JO)

Latest decision summaries

• Date of Decision:2/25/2021 Decision Case Number:856-2019

  An on-call prosecutor took a decision to conduct a house search without there being a decision to detain the individual sought after

  Read more

  Summary

  In a preliminary investigation, an investigator from the Customs office contacted an on-call prosecutor for a decision on a house search, in an apartment, to search for an individual who was suspected of a crime. After an oral presentation, the prosecutor took a decision on a so-called personal house search. However, there was no decision to detain the individual sought after, which was a precondition for a decision to search the house in this case. Also, it later emerged, that the individual, who was sought after, had already been arrested when the prosecutor issued the decision.
  
  The Parliamentary Ombudsman directs criticism towards the prosecutor for taking a decision to conduct a personal search of a house without legal support and for not thoroughly looking into who would be sought after. Moreover, the prosecutor is also criticized for deficiencies in the documentation of the decision.

• Date of Decision:2/23/2021 Decision Case Number:8665-2019

  The Parliamentary Ombudsman directs criticism towards the Municipal Adult Education and Employment Committee in Örebro municipality for denying an application on financial support that was signed by a custodian

  Read more

  Summary

  A woman was eligible for financial support from the Municipal Adult Education and Employment Committee. The woman had a custodian assigned to safeguard her rights. The committee demanded that the woman should sign an application for financial support herself or with her custodian.
  
  In the decision, the Parliamentary Ombudsman states that there are no formal requirements on the design of an application for financial support and that the committee therefore cannot require that the individual in question signs the application.
  
  A custodian with the task of safeguarding the rights of an individual helps him or her to exercise his or her legal capacity, this implies that a custodian takes various legal actions on behalf of an individual. To apply for financial support can be part of the assignments of a custodian. A prerequisite for a custodian, in a case where an individual´s consent should be obtained, is to be able to apply for financial support, if the individual gives his or her consent. The custodian should make sure that the individual agrees to the measure.
  
  According to what has emerged, the woman was able to express her opinions whether an application for financial support should be made or not. The committee has not claimed that that the matter concerned that the woman did not give her consent to the application. According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the committee should have accepted that the custodian applied for financial support on behalf of the woman.
  
  The committee can therefore not escape criticism.

• Date of Decision:2/18/2021 Decision Case Number:2013-2019

  The Parliamentary Ombudsman has received a complaint against the Migration Agency regarding the formulation of guidelines for public counsel’s visits with migration detainees at Åstorp

  Read more

  Summary

  The Migration Agency’s detention centre in Åstorp has a guideline for public counsel’s visits to detained clients. The guidelines states that the visit takes place in a locked and limited space. In the decision, the Parliamentary Ombudsman states that the Migration Agency is responsible for ensuring that the visit to the client is conducted pursuant to the Aliens Act and in a safe manner.
  
  The Parliamentary Ombudsman notes that a detainee’s right, in accordance to the Aliens Act, to receive visits by his or her public counsel, may not be limited by the routines applied at the detention centre in Åstorp. The Parliamentary Ombudsman has no basis for directing criticism towards the Migration Agency due to the occurrences but states that the Migration Agency has reasons to develop national guidelines for public counsels’ visits to detained clients, and that, when conducting these guidelines, there may be causes to consult with, for example, the Bar Association.

• Date of Decision:2/18/2021 Decision Case Number:6610-2019

  The Parliamentary Ombudsman has received a complaint against the Prison and Probation Service, Kumla prison, due to the prison’s management of visits from children, etc.

  Read more

  Summary

  At Kumla prion it is up to the inmate to stay informed concerning upcoming visits and it is often the visitor that informs the inmate regarding the visit. The prison staff will not inform the inmate about the visit until the same day as the visit is planned. In the decision, the Parliamentary Ombudsman states that this arrangement does not contravene any explicit provisions. According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s investigation, however, the prison’s routines for notifying an inmate of a visit may risk that the inmate does not have time to prepare for the visit nor does not have the time or opportunity to order food for the visit. The Parliamentary Ombudsman does not find reasons to direct criticism towards the prison due to this matter, but advises the prison to examine the routines regarding notifications on upcoming visits, specifically when it comes to visits by children.

• Date of Decision:2/17/2021 Decision Case Number:525-2020

  A judge at Göteborg District Court made a telephone call to a prosecutor in a private matter

  Read more

  Summary

  A judge made a telephone call to a prosecutor on behalf of a relative, the prosecutor was the lead investigator in a case at another location. The conversation took place after the relative's husband and an acquaintance of the family had been apprehended. During the conversation the judge stated her name and job title. She then described the situation of the relative's family, the detainees’ behaviour and asked certain questions. The Parliamentary Ombudsman states that there is no regulation on how or in what contexts a judge may use his or her title in private matters, but emphasizes that a judge may not use his title and position so that there is a risk that he may be perceived as trying to provide for themselves or for relatives’ interests. Judges should generally refrain from referring to their position when acting as individuals.

• Date of Decision:2/17/2021 Decision Case Number:5705-2019

  The Police Authority has executed a decision to conduct a body examination on an individual in a manner that led to a body search

  Read more

  Summary

  A 16-year-old was suspected of using and possessing narcotics and was therefore taken to the police station. At the station the 16-year-old had to take his clothes off and pull down his underwear, to enable the police to search whether he kept narcotics in his clothes. The police officers that conducted the search stated that they executed a decision on a body examination that the leading official of the investigation had issued.
  
  Even though the police had no intention to examine the 16-year-old’s body the Parliamentary Ombudsman considers that the investigation was carried out in such a way that it was to be regarded as a body search and not a body examination. The coercive measure that was implemented was in fact another type of search than the one the police had received a decision to carry out, and of a much more intrusive manner. The Parliamentary Ombudsman directs criticism towards the Police Authority due to this measure and for deficiencies in the documentation.
  
  In the decision, the Parliamentary Ombudsman also states that the demarcation between a body examination and a body search is, in many cases, not clear. An examination of an individual’s clothes, which constitutes a body examination, may not be carried out, in some situations, without the individual taking off and handing over their clothes. According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s understanding, however, this does not necessarily mean that the measure cannot be considered a body examination. If the purpose of the body examination postulates that the individual under investigation takes off their clothes in front of someone else, the police can offer the individual a blanket or something similar to cover themselves with. If it is not possible to carry out a body examination in an appropriate manner with such an arrangement, there is reason to consider if there is a need to conduct the intrusive coercive measure of a body search. However, a certified leading official must take a decision to conduct such measure before it is carried out.

• Date of Decision:2/17/2021 Decision Case Number:2586-2019

  The Parliamentary Ombudsman directs criticism towards the Board of Chief Guardians in Malmö municipality for slow processing of a case on dismissing a custodian

  Read more

  Summary

  A custodian requested his dismissal from a Board of Chief Guardians regarding two assignment, pursuant to chapter 11, section 19, second paragraph of the Parents Code. In the case of one assignment, six months after the petition to the board, hte custodian requested the court to examine whether he had reasonable grounds for being dismissed as a custodian before a replacement had been appointed, pursuant to chapter 11, section 19 a, first paragraph of the Parents Code. The board took certain measures to find a suitable replacement after the custodian had turned to the court. Despite these measures, it took almost a year before the dismissal was issued. The Parliamentary Ombudsman has taken into consideration that the case is complex, but holds that the board will receive criticism due to the slow processing of the case. During the review of the case the Parliamentary Ombudsman states that processing of a case at a court does not create an obstacle for a board to continue their own processing to find a suitable replacement, to be able to dismiss the substitute pursuant to chapter 11, section 19, second paragraph of the Parents Code. The board’s processing of the second case of dismissal was also slow. According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s understanding, the length of time concerning the second case, was however, in view of the circumstances, not of the nature that the board deserves criticism. The Parliamentary Ombudsman also makes certain statements regarding the management of cases. In the decision, the Parliamentary Ombudsman makes a final statement regarding the requirement to send out a notification to concerned individuals, pursuant to section 11 of the Administrative Procedure Act.

• Date of Decision:2/16/2021 Decision Case Number:5117-2019

  The Parliamentary Ombudsman directs criticism towards the Employment and Social Welfare Committee in Malmö municipality due to their processing of an immediate order for care pursuant to section 6 of the Care of Young Persons Act

  Read more

  Summary

  In the decision, the Parliamentary Ombudsman makes certain statement regarding if the Act on Calculating the Statutory Time should be applied when the time limit in section 7 of the Care of Young Persons Act, is pursued. In this case, it meant that the deadline of one week, due to the intervening Easter weekend, became eleven days and therefore expired on April 23, 2019. The administration neglected to observe this. The administration believed that the deadline had already expired on 19 April, 2019. This resulted in a youth under care being released, on false grounds, from the youth home where he was placed. The Parliamentary Ombudsman states that the case management has failed and that the board will receive criticism due to this fact.
  
  In the decision, the Parliamentary Ombudsman also puts attention to the board’s referral response concerning the authority’s experiences with young persons deviating and evading enforcement in certain cases after they have been informed that the board has taken a decision on an order for immediate care pursuant to section 6 of the Care of Young Persons Act. Therefore, the board, in certain cases, waits to submit the decision to the Administrative Court until it has been enforced. In these cases, the decision is always subject to the court within one week.
  
  Due to the board’s statements the Parliamentary Ombudsman holds that a decision on an order for immediate care is a very intrusive measure that is taken in an emergency situation and due to legal certainty, it is important that such decisions is subject to judicial review as soon as possible. According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, there is no scope for the board to wait to submit the decision until it has been enforced.
  
  The Parliamentary Ombudsman states that in view of the need for care in this particular case, it is of importance that a decision on an order for immediate care is enforced. It is possible, that the issues that the board addressed in the referral response, also exist in other municipalities. A copy of the decision has been sent to the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs and the National Board of Health and Welfare for knowledge.