https://www.jo.se/feed/latest-decisions The latest decision summaries published at www.jo.se en https://www.jo.se/en/decision/criticism-of-the-government-offices-of-sweden-for-slow-processing-of-seven-requests-for-the-disclosure-of-official-documents/ 2026-03-19 11:15:35 Summary of the decision: In his decision, the Parliamentary Ombudsman gives an opinion on whether the Government Offices of Sweden has processed seven requests for the disclosure of official documents with sufficient urgency. The requests were submitted by reporters at Dagens Nyheter in connection with their investigation of the then national security advisor and those close to him. The Parliamentary ombudsman criticises the Government Offices of Sweden for failing to process the requests in question as promptly as the Freedom of the Press Act (SFS 1949:105) requires. In his decision, the Parliamentary Ombudsman emphasises the importance of the Government Offices of Sweden in particular respecting the right of access that the Freedom of the Press Act is intended to guarantee. In the opinion of the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Government Offices of Sweden has failed to present an adequately detailed assessment of the individual requests, and this has impeded the review. The Parliamentary Ombudsman is critical of this shortcoming. https://www.jo.se/en/decision/criticism-of-the-government-offices-of-sweden-for-slow-processing-of-a-request-for-the-disclosure-of-email-logs/ 2026-03-19 11:25:56 Summary of the decision: The Government Offices of Sweden is criticised for failing to process a request for access to email logs with the promptness required by the Freedom of the Press Act (SFS 1949:105). It is not permitted to dispose of a document while there is an outstanding request to access it that has not yet been finally examined. The Parliamentary Ombudsman holds that it must therefore be ensured that an email log is not automatically deleted while it is the subject of a request for access. https://www.jo.se/en/decision/statement-on-the-swedish-work-environment-authoritys-processing-of-tip-offs-from-individuals-and-on-certain-statements-on-the-disclosure-of-official-documents-to-informants/ 2026-03-19 11:13:52 Summary of the decision: Individuals can submit complaints to the Swedish Work Environment Authority concerning irregularities in the workplace. The Swedish Work Environment Authority does not automatically open a case when a tip-off is received, nor does it give any feedback to the individual concerning how the authority intends to proceed in response to the tip-off. The Parliamentary Ombudsman considers this procedure to be acceptable given that there are no provisions stating that the Swedish Work Environment Authority must act on reports or complaints from individuals, nor any expectation on the part of legislators that the authority shall process such reports and complaints. Nor does the Parliamentary Ombudsman believe that it is necessary from a legal-certainty perspective that individuals should be able to initiate a case with the Swedish Work Environment Authority by submitting a complaint or report. In his decision, the Parliamentary Ombudsman also discusses the disclosure of official documents to informants. In certain cases, tip-offs are subject to absolute secrecy, meaning that secrecy applies regardless of whether it can be assumed that the individual may suffer harm or detriment if the information is disclosed. However, as a general rule, secrecy does not apply in relation to the individual themselves. The Parliamentary Ombudsman is therefore of the opinion that the Swedish Work Environment Authority’s information that the authority does not disclose information about tip-offs, and that when asked the authority will neither confirm nor deny that it has received a tip-off, appears to be somewhat categorical. According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, there is reason to review this information. The Parliamentary Ombudsman does not direct any criticism against the Swedish Work Environment Authority in his decision. https://www.jo.se/en/decision/statement-on-the-health-and-social-care-inspectorates-processing-of-information-that-individuals-supply-to-the-agency-concerning-deficiencies-or-irregularities-within-social-services/ 2026-03-19 11:19:01 Summary of the decision: Individuals can supply information to the Health and Social Care Inspectorate (IVO) concerning deficiencies and irregularities within social services and activities pursuant to the Act concerning Support and Service for Persons with Certain Functional Impairments (SFS 1993:387). According to IVO, the agency is under no obligation to open a case in response to such information. IVO informs the individual that she or he will not receive any feedback other than that the agency has received the information. In his decision, the Parliamentary Ombudsman notes that there are no provisions stating that IVO has an obligation to act on complaints from individuals concerning social services and support and service for persons with certain functional impairments that are comparable to the statutory complaint mechanisms for healthcare. As such, IVO’s present processing of incoming information does not contravene any provisions concerning how the agency is to conduct supervision. Nor is there any reason from a legal-certainty perspective to assume that submitting information will result in IVO opening a case. The Parliamentary Ombudsman does not criticise IVO in his decision. https://www.jo.se/en/decision/complaint-against-the-swedish-prison-and-probation-service-hinseberg-prison-concerning-the-treatment-of-an-inmate-during-urine-sampling-also-a-statement-on-new-regulations-for-urine-sampling-and-th/ 2026-03-19 11:22:23 Summary of the decision: An inmate of Hinseberg Prison was selected along with several other inmates to provide a urine sample as there were suspicions that drugs were in circulation on their wing. When providing a sample, the inmates were instructed to undress completely in front of prison officers to ensure that the purpose of the examination was not undermined by manipulation. According to the Swedish Prison and Probation Service, urine samples were taken in accordance with applicable regulations. However, in the decision it is noted that, at the time of the sampling to which the case relates, the Parliamentary Ombudsman had already called into question the then rules and criticised the agency for failing to make individual assessments of whether it was necessary for an inmate to be naked when providing a urine sample (Parliamentary Ombudsmen 2023 p. 159). Given that the urine sampling in this case took place within the scope of a targeted intervention with underlying suspicions that drugs were in circulation, the Parliamentary Ombudsman feels that there is insufficient reason to criticise the prison for instructing inmates to fully undress before providing samples. In his decision, he notes that the rules for urine sampling of inmates have been changed and are now in line with the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s statement on the matter, and that relevant provisions have been updated with regard to whether menstrual health products need to be removed when providing urine samples. The Swedish Prison and Probation Service is reminded that the Parliamentary Ombudsman has previously stated that a procedure in which inmates are instructed to remove a tampon in the present of staff is disproportionate. According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, if it has not already done so, it is important that the agency review the need to clarify its documents and procedures with regard to the circumstances in which menstrual health products are removed.