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-chair-of-a-parole-board-for-reaching-a-final-decision-to-revoke-a-treatment-period-that-had-already-begun-without-consulting-the-board-also-certain-statements-concerning-the-justific/ 2026-09-16 13:28:00 Summary of the decision: Summary of the decision: A prison decided to temporarily revoke permission for one of its clients to complete their sentence with a period of treatment. The chair of a parole board established the decision on the same date. Two days later, he reached a final decision to revoke the treatment period. As a rule, a parole board has a quorum when the chair and two members are present. The chair may decide on behalf of the board if the matter is urgent or of minor significance. Any such decision must be reported at the next meeting of the board. The Parliamentary Ombudsman states that, while she has no opinion concerning the chair alone establishing the prison’s temporary decision, she is of the opinion that the final assessment should have been made at a regular or specially convened meeting of the board. The chair of the board is criticised for his processing of the case. The decision also includes certain statements concerning the justification for the final decision. https://www.jo.se/en/decision/based-on-the-situations-of-two-inmates-the-parliamentary-ombudsman-makes-statements-concerning-the-consideration-given-to-inmates-health-by-the-swedish-prison-and-probation-service-in-relati/ 2026-09-21 16:43:34 Summary of the decision: During 2024, the Parliamentary Ombudsmen’s OPCAT Unit conducted a series of inspections of remand prisons and prisons to study the consequences and risks that double occupancy of cells may have for inmates. This inspection series was conducted as part of the Parliamentary Ombudsmen’s assignment as a National Preventive Mechanism, the purpose of which is to prevent the cruel or inhuman treatment of people who are deprived of liberty. One of the facilities visited was Hällby Prison, where the OPCAT Unit called attention to the situation faced by an inmate with certain health issues. At the same time, another inmate with health issues made a complaint against the prison. This decision addresses both cases. Reports on the inspection series were published during the processing of these cases. In the present decision, the Parliamentary Ombudsman further develops some of the recommendations in the report on prisons, and makes statements concerning the consideration given to inmates’ physical and mental health by the Swedish Prison and Probation Service when deciding on dual occupancy. She is of the opinion that the agency should identify medical reasons that may constitute an impediment to cell sharing in its guidelines. The Parliamentary Ombudsman emphasises the significance of the individual inmate’s state of health to both them and a potential cellmate. She also considers the task and role of the agency’s Prisoner Allocation Section in placement decisions. Finally, the Parliamentary Ombudsman finds it unsatisfactory that the Swedish Prison and Probation Service’s instructions do not include any guidance whatsoever concerning the documentation and follow-up of double occupancy in prison cells. https://www.jo.se/en/decision/criticism-of-the-swedish-police-authority-for-poor-documentation-of-measures-taken-at-border-control/ 2026-09-21 16:44:18 Summary of the decision: Summary of the decision: When conducting border checks of two third-country nationals at Stockholm Arlanda Airport, the Swedish Police Authority interviewed each traveller without an interpreter. Other interviews and subsequent service of decisions where however conducted with an interpreter. When inspecting the travellers’ baggage, police officers also checked the content of their mobile telephones in the form of installed apps and screenshots. The Parliamentary Ombudsman notes that the Swedish Police Authority failed to document either the reason that no interpreter was present at certain interviews or any details concerning the inspection of the travellers’ mobile telephones, and is critical of this. The Parliamentary Ombudsman states that if, on any occasion, the Swedish Police Authority assesses that no interpreter is required when conducting interviews at border control even though the interviewee does not speak Swedish, this assessment should be documented. The Parliamentary Ombudsman also expresses doubt as to whether there were legal grounds on which to search the travellers’ mobile telephones, although he notes that it is difficult to make any more detailed statements on this matter due to the lack of documentation. https://www.jo.se/en/decision/concerning-the-swedish-prison-and-probation-services-processing-of-packages-addressed-to-inmates/ 2026-09-16 13:31:25 Summary of the decision: Summary of the decision: During 2024, the Parliamentary Ombudsmen received a number of complaints concerning the Swedish Prison and Probation Service’s processing of packages addressed to inmates. The matter has been reviewed in this case. In her decision, the Parliamentary Ombudsman discusses the circumstances under which the contents of shipments may be retained or held for inmates, how packages delivered to collection points should be dealt with, and her view on inmates being required to provide information on the contents of a package before being permitted to receive it. The Parliamentary Ombudsman notes that regulations concerning shipments sent to inmates are ambiguous, and therefore sends a copy of the decision to the Government and to the chair of the inquiry currently reviewing the Act on Detention and Act on Imprisonment. https://www.jo.se/en/decision/criticism-of-the-swedish-prison-and-probation-service-including-karlskoga-prison-for-the-processing-of-a-request-for-a-medical-certificate-etc/ 2026-09-21 16:30:55 Summary of the decision: Summary of the decision: A lawyer acting as representative and public defence counsel for an inmate of Karlskoga Prison in a case concerning a residence permit on the grounds of asylum requested the Swedish Prison and Probation Service’s doctor to issue a medical certificate concerning their client’s health. Despite repeated correspondence with one of the prison’s doctors, no such certificate was issued. Only when the matter of a medical certificate was passed on to another doctor affiliated with the prison was a certificate issued. The Swedish Prison and Probation Service, Karlskoga Prison, is criticised for its processing of the request for a certificate. The Swedish Prison and Probation Service, its head office and Karlskoga Prison are also criticised for failing in their service obligation pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (SFS 2017:900) with regard to answering certain questions asked by the lawyer.