Criticism of Gävle District Court for deficient and slow processing of a civil case

Summary of the decision: Gävle District Court has been suffering from a shortage of judges. The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman has reviewed proceedings in two civil actions brought before the district court. In one of the cases, the scheduled main hearing was postponed due to a shortage of judges. The case then remained pending for seven months before a new date was set for the main hearing. By the time the case was adjudicated, it had been ongoing for around one year and two months. In his decision, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman makes certain statements concerning a court’s obligations prior to and after the postponement of a hearing. The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman finds it deeply concerning that main hearings are postponed due to staff shortages. While he notes that the subsequent delay in rescheduling the hearing delayed proceedings, he finds no reason to criticise the district court in this case.

In the other civil case, the total processing time was around three years and three months. During this period, the district court held three preparatory hearings and postponed two main hearings. There was also a period of nine months during which it appears that no procedural measures were taken. In the assessment of the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman, the district court failed in its duty to proceed with preparations with the aim of swiftly adjudicating the case. The district court is criticised for this deficient and slow processing. The chief judge is also criticised for failing to act to ensure that the case was adjudicated with the required swiftness.