Criticism of Gothenburg District Court for shortcomings in proceedings in a civil case pursuant to the Regulation establishing a European Small Claims Procedure

Date of decision: 2025-06-13 Decision case number: 5470-2024 Decision maker: ChefsJO Erik Nymansson

Summary of the decision: The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman has reviewed proceedings in Gothenburg District Court in a civil case pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 861/200 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure. In the decision, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman explains the regulation’s special procedures and requirement for the court to act as soon as possible, and criticises the district court for the fact that initial proceedings in the case were incompatible with the Regulation in several areas.

As the plaintiff wished to be examined under oath, the district court arranged a preliminary hearing for party examination. This hearing was scheduled for over five months after the summons was sent. Moreover, the district court rejected the plaintiff’s request to attend the hearing via video link from Poland.

The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman notes that the decision concerning the scheduling of the hearing and the plaintiff’s attendance involved both a very long delay in relation to the time limits stated in the Regulation and a deviation from the general rule that preliminary hearings may be held via, for example, video conferencing. As to the reason for its decision, the district court essentially referred to uncertainty concerning the plaintiff’s address, something that caused difficulties in applying for legal assistance with the presentation of evidence. While the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman sympathises with these difficulties, according to the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman, the district court cannot escape criticism for failing to take additional measures to clear up the uncertainty surrounding the plaintiff’s address before reaching a decision that so clearly deviated from the intended procedure and requirement to act promptly. The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman also expresses some criticism concerning the formulation of the district court’s decision.