The Family and Education Committee in Ängelholm Municipality is criticised for among other things failing to clarify which documents an individual was requesting access to and for not examining the request pursuant to the provision of the Administrative Procedure Act on party transparency

Summary of the decision: An individual requested access to documents in a case to which he was a party. Despite the fact that the committee appears to have been of the opinion that the request was not sufficiently specific, no measures were taken to clarify which documents the request related to. In his decision, the Parliamentary Ombudsman states that an authority needs to ascertain what a request for the disclosure of documents relates to if it is unclear which documents the individual wishes to access. The Parliamentary Ombudsman is critical of the committee’s failure to do so.

The individual reiterated his request at a subsequent meeting, when according to the committee he referred to an investigation. The individual was informed that the investigation was ongoing and that he would receive the statutory notification before a decision was made. As the term investigation can have various meanings within social services, it is the opinion of the Parliamentary Ombudsman that on this occasion too the committee should have sought clarification of which documents the individual was requesting. The committee is criticised for failing to do so.

The individual did not receive copies of any documents as the committee considered the request to refer to working documents that could not be disclosed. The committee is therefore also criticised for failing to inform the individual of the possibility pursuant to Section 3 of Chapter 6 of the Public Access to Information and Secrecy Act (SFS 2009:400) to request the authority to review the matter, which would have resulted in an appealable decision. Despite the fact that the individual was party to the case to which the request related, it was only examined pursuant to the provisions of the Freedom of the Press Act (SFS 1949:105) on access to official documents. The Parliamentary Ombudsman is of the opinion that the committee should also have examined the request pursuant to the provision of the Administrative Procedure Act (SFS 2017:900) on party transparency and is critical of the failure to do so. In conclusion, the Parliamentary Ombudsman underlines that an authority may not refrain from examining a party’s request for access to official documents solely on the grounds that they will receive statutory notification of all the material of importance for its decision in the case.