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-swedish-migration-agency-because-notifications-of-decisions-on-the-repayment-of-daily-allowance-failed-to-fulfil-the-requirements-of-the-administrative-procedure-act-concerning-servic/ 2026-01-29 15:26:02 Summary of the decision: The Parliamentary Ombudsman has reviewed the formulation of repayment notifications sent by the Swedish Migration Agency to individuals who had been paid a daily allowance. The Parliamentary Ombudsman concludes that such notifications are non-binding decisions, and in his decision states the requirements that therefore follow from the service obligation in the Swedish Administrative Procedure Act (SFS 2017:900). Among other things, the Parliamentary Ombudsman states that a public authority inducing an individual to make a repayment must explain its position so that the individual can understand why the authority considers them to have a payment obligation. It must also be clear that this is the authority’s opinion and that the matter has not yet been finally decided. The request must not be formulated so that it can be taken for a decision whereby the authority orders the individual to repay a certain amount. The Parliamentary Ombudsman criticises the Swedish Migration Agency because the notifications failed to meet the service obligation placed on public authorities in their contacts with private persons. https://www.jo.se/en/decision/the-social-welfare-committee-in-boxholm-municipality-is-severely-criticised-for-extensive-deficiencies-in-the-processing-of-two-child-welfare-investigations/ 2026-01-29 15:20:41 Summary of the decision: The Parliamentary Ombudsman notes that there have been significant deficiencies in the processing of two child welfare investigations conducted during 2022 and 2023. The investigations were not conducted promptly and were not completed by the reporting deadline. The total length of the investigations was almost 11 months, which the Parliamentary Ombudsman considers completely unacceptable. Nor did the committee immediately inform the parents/guardians that the investigations had commenced. It also appears that the committee gave no consideration whatsoever to whether it was appropriate to interview the child at school. The committee also failed to fulfil its obligation to notify the affected party so that they could offer an opinion before the decision was made. Moreover, the investigations were so poorly documented that the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s review was made significantly more difficult. Overall, the committee is severely criticised for these deficiencies. https://www.jo.se/en/decision/criticism-of-the-swedish-prison-and-probation-service-sollentuna-remand-prison-because-inmates-without-restrictions-are-not-permitted-adequate-time-to-associate-in-communal-areas/ 2025-10-20 11:11:00 Summary of the decision: While cells in Sollentuna Remand Prison now have dual-occupancy, communal areas have not been adapted to the new number of inmates. As a consequence, inmates who are not subject to restrictions have only been permitted in communal areas for two and a half and just over three hours on alternate days, including time on the exercise yard. The Parliamentary Ombudsman criticises the prison for this procedure and notes that it contravenes the general rule that prisoners on remand without restrictions shall be permitted to associate with other inmates during the daytime if they so wish. According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, lack of resources is no excuse for the extensive limitations on association this procedure imposes on inmates who are not subject to restrictions. https://www.jo.se/en/decision/criticism-of-the-chief-guardians-committee-in-uppsala-county-for-failing-to-apply-for-the-appointment-of-a-trustee-for-an-individual-deemed-to-be-in-need-of-trusteeship-also-certain-observations-conc/ 2025-09-02 15:54:50 Summary of the decision: A healthcare facility reported to the Chief Guardians Committee that an individual receiving care there was in need of trusteeship. Despite the committee finding that the conditions existed to apply for trusteeship, the case was closed without any such application being made to the courts. The Chief Guardians Committee justified its decision by stating that the trustees whose services the authority engages are laypeople and could not be expected to have the necessary qualifications to handle the risks associated with the assignment. No attempt was made to recruit a suitable trustee. The Parliamentary Ombudsman criticises the committee. In her decision, the Parliamentary Ombudsman notes that a chief guardian must apply for the appointment of a trustee if it becomes clear that the individual is in need of it. This obligation is linked to the need for trusteeship itself and the relevant regulations leave no room for the position the committee chose to adopt on the matter. She also emphasises that chief guardians have a far-reaching responsibility to ensure that the need for trusteeship can be met, and must make all reasonable efforts to recruit trustees regardless of the difficulty involved in the assignment. According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, an application should have been submitted as soon as it was clear that trusteeship was needed, regardless of whether the matter of recruiting a trustee had been resolved. The Parliamentary Ombudsman’s decision includes a number of observations concerning so-called professional trustees. Among other things, she acknowledges that chief guardians may have difficulty finding suitable trustees and that the case in question illustrates the risk that an individual will not receive adequate help and support. A copy of the decision has been sent to the Government for information. https://www.jo.se/en/decision/criticism-of-the-swedish-prison-and-probation-service-skogome-prison-for-returning-a-request-for-the-review-of-a-decision-also-certain-statements-concerning-the-authoritys-work-to-address/ 2025-09-02 16:13:19 Summary of the decision: An inmate had applied for telephone permission but the application was rejected. When he submitted a request for the decision to be reviewed, he wrote three words in capital letters. The request was received, date stamped and signed. Two days later, a prison officer came to him with the request and convinced him to withdraw it, among other things because the use of capital letters might be perceived as an attempt to influence the decision-maker. The Parliamentary Ombudsman states that the request was an official document received by the authority, and that there were no legal grounds for returning it. The prison is criticised for its processing. While the Parliamentary Ombudsman commends the prison and the Swedish Prison and Probation Service in general for making considerable effort to address the issue of undue influence given the harsher climate within the authority, she underlines that reporting must be done with due consideration and understanding for the situation of inmates. The Parliamentary Ombudsman states that she may have reason to return to the matter.