Latest decision summaries

  • Date of Decision:4/9/2018 Reg.No:1200-2017

    The Parliamentary Ombudsmen directs criticism towards the Committee on Planning and Community Development in Värnamo municipality for having informed a company that a newspaper had requested documents about the company’s business operations

    Read more
  • Date of Decision:3/28/2018 Reg.No:2214-2016

    Enquiry initiated by the Parliamentary Ombudsmen regarding a serious incident of violence at the Swedish Prison and Probation Service’s facility in Salberg

    Read more
  • Date of Decision:3/26/2018 Reg.No:1087-2016

    Enquiry initiated by the Parliamentary Ombudsmen regarding the Swedish Prison and Probation Service’s options on differentiating the treatment of female inmates in its facilities, etc.

    Read more
  • Date of Decision:3/23/2018 Reg.No:494-2016

    The Parliamentary Ombudsmen directs criticism towards the Individual and Family Care Division in Ånge municipality for making contact with a parent via a text message before an information inquiry was provided to the court

    Read more
  • Date of Decision:3/22/2018 Reg.No:7923-2017

    The Administrative Court in Stockholm recieves criticism for a lack of diligence in verifying the court's jurisdiction and at a judge at the Administrative Court for deciding to transfer a case to another administrative court without statutory support

    Read more
  • Date of Decision:3/20/2018 Reg.No:7627-2016

    The Parliamentary Ombudsmen directs criticism towards the headmaster of Nordhemsskolan in Gothenburg municipality

    Read more
  • Date of Decision:3/20/2018 Reg.No:2436-2017

    Disciplinary action for a judge who failed to communicate judgments within the prescribed time limits, in three cases

    Hide information

    Summary

    A judge at Västmanland’s District Court failed to provide a notification of judgements within the prescribed time limits, in four cases. During the spring of 2017, he postponed the notification of judgements on 18 separate occasions which resulted in the judgements being notified between two and a half weeks to almost two months after the main hearing. The judgements included a custody case and two criminal cases with detained persons.

    In a decision on 26 September 2017, the Parliamentary Ombudsman assessed that the judge had breached his obligations in a manner that constituted misconduct and handed the question of disciplinary action over to the Government Disciplinary Board for Higher Officials.

    In a decision on 5 December 2017, the Disciplinary Board issued a warning to the judge. The Disciplinary Board assessed that it was not acceptable to repeatedly move the day of a judgement notification in the manner that the judge had done for three of the cases. The judge had therefore deliberately been in breach of his obligations in such a manner that misconduct existed.

    The Disciplinary Board’s decision is final, and the Parliamentary Ombudsman thereby closed the case

  • Date of Decision:3/16/2018 Reg.No:1692-2016

    The Parliamentary Ombudsmen received a complaint against the Swedish Prison and Probation Service, Hällby facility, regarding video surveillance of inmates

    Read more
Search