The Swedish Parliamentary Ombudsmen (JO)

Latest decision summaries

• Date of Decision:6/2/2021 Decision Case Number:5611-2019

  In the search for a missing person who was believed to be suicidal, the police conducted a house search without having had support for it

  Read more

  Summary

  A person who was believed to be suicidal had disappeared from an adult housing for inidivudal's under care pursuant to the Support and Service for Person with Certain Functional Impairments Act. The Police Authority searched through another person's apartment as part of the general search of the surrounding area.

  The Parliamentary Ombudsman states that a house search entailed a search of the premises that must be authorised by law.

  Section 21 of the Police Act states that legal support for searching an individual’s home rests on the necessity to search for someone who has gone missing, if it is assumed that this person needs help. According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, there were no indications that the missing person was located in the apartment in question and that the police asked the occupant of the apartment any questions about the missing person before a search was conducted. It appears that one did not consider whether the search was even necessary at all. The Parliamentary Ombudsman finds that according to the investigation there was no basis for the assessment that there was a need for a house search and that the purpose could not have been achieved in a less invasive way. This action was therefore not necessary pursuant to section 21 of the Police Act. Nor was there any other legal basis for the action.

  The Parliamentary Ombudsman directs criticism towards the Police Authority for carrying out the search of the home and for shortcomings in the documentation.

• Date of Decision:6/1/2021 Decision Case Number:647-2020

  Criticism of a principal at a municipal primary school in Växjö municipality for designing an activity in a way that gave students the impression that they were forced to state their opinion

  Read more

  Summary

  A school had a theme week on the equal value of all human beings. The school finished the week with students waiving rainbow flags in the playground during an activity. Through this activity, the school wanted to point out the equal value of all human beings as well as hold a pride parade the following day.

  The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman expresses the importance of the school clearly making a statement in support of constitutional values, however it is also important that the school does not act in a way that may give people the impression that they are forced to participate in activities that involve the statement of an opinion. The school’s principal cannot avoid criticism for how the activity was organised.

• Date of Decision:6/1/2021 Decision Case Number:7013-2019

  The Parliamentary Ombudsman directs criticism towards a principal at a municipal primary school in Umeå municipality for designing an activity as a demonstration

  Read more

  Summary

  A school had a theme week about the climate and sustainability. The week was closed with students marching and holding signs outside the school area, in which they expressed what they wanted to do to contribute to a sustainable development. The school had called the presentation a manifestation.

  According to the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman, it is obvious that students should be taught about climate and sustainability matters. Schools also have a great deal of liberty when it comes to designing the teaching and in choosing how to present subjects based on what is believed to best suit the students. However, information about the activity in question shows that it must be regarded as a demonstration. Since the activity was included in the mandatory teaching, one could say that the students have been forced to participate in it. According to the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman, the school has thereby acted contrary to the statute-regulated requirements pursuant to the Instrument of Government in violation of governmental regulations. The school’s principal receives criticism for how the activity was designed.

• Date of Decision:5/31/2021 Decision Case Number:796-2020

  The Parliamentary Ombudsman directs severe criticism towards a doctor for issuing a medical certificate without first performing a medical examination etc.

  Read more

  Summary

  A doctor issued a medical certificate for compulsory psychiatric inpatient care without first performing an examination of the patient, as it is set out in the Compulsory Psychiatric Care Act. According to the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman, it is a basic rule of law that such an examination is performed, and there is no room for failing to examine a patient before a medical certificate is issued. The doctor also did not fulfill his/her obligation pursuant to the Compulsory Psychiatric Care Act to ensure that the medical certificate was sent to the care facility where the hospitalization was to be reviewed. The doctor receives severe criticism due to these shortcomings.

  In its decision, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman determines that current legislation does not answer the question of how a medical certificate should be sent from, for example, a healthcare center to a care facility where a matter of hospitalization will be reviewed. The responsibility to ensure that this takes place falls on the doctor who issued the certificate. According to the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman, it is important that all involved authorities cooperate to the fullest possible extent. The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman will not comment on the fact that the Police Authority, in connection with assistance from other authorities, also transports the medical certificate, provided that it can be done safely. However, the care provider is ultimately responsible for ensuring that the medical certificate is sent to the care facility that will review the issue of hospitalization.

• Date of Decision:5/26/2021 Decision Case Number:1963-2020

  Inspection of the Chief Guardian in Gnosjö municipality

  Read more

  Summary

  On a TV program during the winter of 2020, a segment was shown about the conditions of a young person (AA) who had an administrator and who lived at a housing provided by the Support and Service for Person with Certain Functional Impairments Act. Upon this, a number of reports were submitted to the Parliamentary Ombudsman that had to do with AA’s administrator and the chief guardian’s supervision. In light of this, the Parliamentary Ombudsman decided to inspect the Chief Guardian in Gnosjö municipality. Due to the pandemic, however, the facility could not be inspected on site. Instead, what is referred to as a desk inspection was carried out and the review focused on how the chief guardian had managed the administrative matters.

  The Parliamentary Ombudsman found that she was only given access to a relatively limited amount of material, but that her impression from the observations that she was able to make was that the chief guardian’s activities were performed well in general. However, regarding the supervision of AA, the Parliamentary Ombudsman noted that the chief guardian summoned to a meeting, and participated in it, in which the client’s life at the housing and his/her personal conditions were discussed. Also present at the meeting was AA’s administrator. According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, such procedure does not comply with the chief guardian’s job.

  In the decision, the Parliamentary Ombudsman also makes some general statements on a chief guardian’s supervision of an administrator.

• Date of Decision:5/25/2021 Decision Case Number:7070-2019

  The Parliamentary Ombudsman directs criticism towards the Prison and Probation Service, Hinseberg prison, for their actions in connection with bodily searches of an inmate etc.

  Read more

  Summary

  An inmate was placed in isolation to undergo a bodily search because it was suspected that she had swallowed narcotics. The facility used a customs rest room to perform the bodily search. When narcotics was not detected in the excrement, the inmate was asked if she would agree to an additional bodily search at a hospital, in the form of among other things a vaginal and rectal examination. According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the documentation indicates that the facility used a perceived consent as the basis for the decision to perform a bodily search. The Parliamentary Ombudsman states that the space for allowing a consent to be enough to execute a forced action which would otherwise require a legal basis is highly limited and that it is the decision of the Prison and Probation Service that is the deciding factor of whether an inmate should undergo an involuntary action such a bodily search. To the inmate, it must have appeared as though the alternative to a bodily search was continued isolation. The Parliamentary Ombudsman states that the voluntariness in such a situation must be regarded as illusory. The staff responsible receives criticism for how they handled the matter and for certain shortcomings in their documentation.

• Date of Decision:5/20/2021 Decision Case Number:387-2021

  The Parliamentary Ombudsman directs criticism towards the County Administrative Board in Västra Götaland county for deciding not to carry out inspections according to the Guardianship Act

  Read more

  Summary

  With reference to the spread of Covid-19 and the general advice from the Public Health Agency, the County Administrative Board in Västra Götaland decided to stop its review of chief guardian files. The board determined that many municipalities’ chief guardian activities would therefore not be inspected according to the Guardianship Act.

  The Parliamentary Ombudsman argues that a desire to keep the spread of infection to a minimum cannot be taken so far as an authority allowing itself to deviate from laws and regulations. The board is criticized for deciding not to carry out inspections in accordance with the Guardianship Act without having legal support for it. 

   

• Date of Decision:5/20/2021 Decision Case Number:8454-2019

  The Parliamentary Ombudsman directs criticism towards Lund District Court for a delay in holding bankruptcy hearings and for giving the state preferential treatment as a creditor when declaring bankruptcy

  Read more

  Summary

  A creditor’s application for bankruptcy that is to be reviewed must, as a rule, be tried in a bankruptcy hearing. The hearing must be held within two weeks from the time when the application was submitted to the court. In connection with an inspection of Lund District Court, the Parliamentary Ombudsman noted that the District Court had waited before scheduling a number of cases for a hearing. The court justified this by saying that as the applicant, the state had been late in paying the application fee and that the cases could not be scheduled before this had been done. Regarding the calculation of the time limit for declaring a bankruptcy, the Parliamentary Ombudsman finds that the regulation in chapter 2, section 16 of the Bankruptcy Act is very clear, and that due to this there is no room for interpretation other than that the time limit of 2 weeks should start from the time when the application was submitted to the court and not from the time when the application fee was paid and the application is processed. Furthermore, the Parliamentary Ombudsman argues that this regulation is not problematic as long as the application for bankruptcy is complete and the application fee has been paid when the application is received by the court. However, if the application fee is paid one week later, the court has a limited time to schedule a hearing in the case and serve the creditor with the information. In light of this, among other things, the Parliamentary Ombudsman does not find sufficient reason to criticize the court for calculating the time limit based on when the application fee had been paid. However, the district court cannot avoid criticism since it did not hold the hearings within two weeks from when this took place. The Parliamentary Ombudsman also criticizes the court for having a special agreement with the Tax Agency on appointing bankruptcy hearings, which is not compatible with the requirement on objectivity set out in chapter 1, section 9 of the Instrument of Government.