https://www.jo.se/feed/latest-decisions The latest decision summaries published at www.jo.se en https://www.jo.se/en/decision/renewed-criticism-of-sahlgrenska-university-hospital-for-slow-processing-of-a-request-for-access-to-official-documents/ 2026-08-18 14:24:17 Summary of the decision: In February 2025, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman criticised Sahlgrenska University Hospital for its slow processing ot requests for access to official documents. In this decision, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman directs renewed criticism at Sahlgrenska University Hospital for its slow processing of such a request. In this case, the total time taken to process the request was almost four months. The investigation reveals that processing times for disclosure requests submitted to the authority have increased significantly during 2025. The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman notes that this is a worrying and highly unsatisfactory development. He underlines the importance of authority’s efforts to cut processing times achieving the desired results and intends to follow developments. https://www.jo.se/en/decision/severe-criticism-of-the-swedish-enforcement-authority-for-among-other-things-poor-service-and-inadequate-justification-for-decisions/ 2026-08-18 14:10:54 Summary of the decision: A cooperative association applied on multiple occasions for orders to pay unpaid membership fees. Having assessed that the applications could not be assessed within the scope of the payment order process, the Swedish Enforcement Authority passed the case on to its Debt Collection Division. The investigation reveals shortcomings in the processing of the case in several regards. When contacted, the agency’s case officer gave incorrect information to the applicant. The agency’s justification for its decision lacked clarity. Furthermore, incoming documents were not registered in time. The Parliamentary Ombudsman notes that the Swedish Enforcement Authority has repeatedly failed in its service obligation. According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, there were significant shortcomings in the processing of the case that have adversely affected the applicant’s ability to exercise its rights. It is the assessment of the Parliamentary Ombudsman that this was due to a combination of individual mistakes, deficient procedures and, in certain regards, the agency’s failure to follow its own procedures. Given the overall circumstances, the Parliamentary Ombudsman is of the opinion that the agency is deserving of severe criticism. https://www.jo.se/en/decision/criticism-of-the-swedish-public-employment-service-for-among-other-things-poor-accessibility-and-service-in-the-processing-of-a-case-involving-a-person-with-disabilities/ 2026-08-18 10:22:39 Summary of the decision: A woman registered as a jobseeker in May 2023. At an initial planning meeting, she stated that she had disabilities, something that the Swedish Public Employment Service was aware of from previous registration periods. After spending 24 weeks in the queue – which the Parliamentary Ombudsman notes is a significant delay – she was invited to a meeting with one of the agency’s assessment teams, at which a number of disability codes were registered. The assessment team initially recommended that the woman participate in a support programme for jobseekers with health problems or disabilities. A while later, the woman was contacted by the Swedish Public Employment Service with the offer of a place in another programme, which she subsequently started. She did however point out that she had assumed that she would be allowed to take part in the programme recommended by the assessment team. The woman later repeatedly contacted the Swedish Public Employment Service to request a meeting and to express her need for support. The response to her wishes and questions was extremely limited. She was repeatedly referred elsewhere within the agency, with no-one taking responsibility for following up contact in a satisfactory manner. The Parliamentary Ombudsman notes that the Swedish Public Employment Service’s processing delayed the woman’s access to the support and interventions she needed, and states that this was the result of unacceptable shortcomings. https://www.jo.se/en/decision/criticism-of-the-swedish-tax-agency-for-providing-misleading-information-to-individuals-concerning-the-processing-of-reported-errors-in-the-swedish-population-register/ 2026-08-18 10:20:37 Summary of the decision: AA notified the Swedish Tax Agency that BB was incorrectly registered as residing at her address. A few months later, an explosion occurred at the entrance to the building, which was probably targeted at BB. The Swedish Tax Agency then immediately corrected the error in the population register concerning BB. The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman found no reason to criticise the agency for its processing of AA’s notification. According to the Swedish Tax Agency, before the agency can investigate a report from a private citizen, the individual must state that they have been caused inconvenience by the error in the population register. If no such information is forthcoming, the Swedish Tax Agency will simply send the incorrectly registered individual a reminder to report a change of address, and then close the case. Among other things, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman has reviewed the information provided to individuals who notify the agency of an error in the population register. The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman notes that the Swedish Tax Agency does not inform individual informants that, in principle, a case is always closed immediately unless the informant expressly states that she or he is being inconvenienced by the registration error. According to the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman, the information that is provided gives the impression that the agency always investigates reports of errors in the population register, which is not the case. It is the assessment of the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman that the information provided to individuals is misleading, and he criticises the Swedish Tax Agency accordingly. https://www.jo.se/en/decision/criticism-of-a-judge-for-lack-of-objectivity-and-impartiality-in-a-case-involving-the-appointment-of-an-administrator/ 2026-08-18 10:25:21 Summary of the decision: In a case before Malmö District Court involving the appointment of an administrator, difficulties arose in supplementing the investigation with a doctor’s certificate, as the individual to which the case related refused to be examined by a doctor. In an interim judgement in the case, the district court had already appointed an administrator for the individual. The presiding judge injuncted the administrator to submit a doctor’s certificate. In the injunction, the judge expressed himself in a manner that was perceived as meaning that he was of the opinion that the administrator should ensure that the individual was examined by a doctor against their will. The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman states that it must be considered doubtful whether an administrator can consent to a medical examination on behalf of an individual. In this case, the injunction gave the erroneous impression that, without further consideration and by far-reaching means, the administrator could coerce the individual into a medical examination. By formulating the injunction as he did, the judge failed to comply with the requirement for objectivity in Section 9 of Chapter 1 of the Instrument of Government (1974:152). The judge is also criticised for lack of objectivity and impartiality concerning the formulation of an injunction to the Chief Guardian Committee, as well as for certain telephone calls related to the case.