Statement concerning an authority’s obligation to examine an individual’s request for access to official documents pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act’s provision on party transparency and what the authority needs to do to determine which documents the request relates to

Summary of the decision: An individual requested access to a social services investigation involving his child. The committee assumed that the request related to social services’ compilation of written material related to the investigation.

In his decision, the Parliamentary Ombudsman notes that an authority needs to ascertain what a request for the disclosure of official documents relates to if its meaning is unclear. The authority may then also need to clarify what an individual means by certain terms. The term investigation can have various meanings within social services. As such, the committee should have enquired what the individual meant when he requested access to his child’s investigation. The Parliamentary Ombudsman is critical of the committee’s failure to do so.

The individual was a party to the case to which his request related. Despite this, the request was solely examined pursuant to the provisions of the Freedom of the Press Act (SFS 1949:105) on access to official documents. In the opinion of the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the committee should also have examined the request pursuant to the provision of the Administrative Procedure Act (SFS 2017:900) on party transparency.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman states that, when the committee examines a request pursuant to the provision on party transparency, the decisive factor is whether the material has been added to the case file. Material that has not been added to the case file cannot be subject to party transparency. One particular difficulty is determining when, for example, a draft or memorandum should be considered to be added to the case. According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, documents of this nature – for example, a draft assessment and recommendation for a decision drawn up once investigative measures have been taken – should only be added to the case file if they contain factual information of significance to deciding on the case that is not documented elsewhere in the file. As the committee has a far-reaching obligation to document its processing of cases involving individuals and its implemented interventions, it should not be the case that factual information of this nature is noted solely in such drafts.

In conclusion, the Parliamentary Ombudsman underlines that the principle of party transparency extends beyond the authority’s obligation to notify the party of all the material of importance for its decision pursuant to Section 25 of the Administrative Procedure Act.