Summary of the decision: In the decision, the Parliamentary Ombudsman expresses an opinion on the interpreting of supervised visits to the Swedish Prison and Probation Service’s secure units when the conversation cannot be conducted in a language staff understand. The Parliamentary Ombudsman has no objection to visits being primarily supervised by prison staff with relevant language skills. However, in her opinion, this must not mean that, in practice, approved contact for an inmate of the secure unit who speaks a language other than Swedish with their friends and family is restricted.

Hall Prison’s previous procedure was that it would never employ external interpreters when inmates on the secure unit had visitors. According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, there were no legal grounds for this procedure and the arrangement clearly meant that an inmate’s right to contact with friends and family was dependent on which language they spoke. She is highly critical of this.

In the case in question, this procedure meant that an inmate was granted visitor permits on a condition that could not be fulfilled. Moreover, it was more than two years until he could receive visits, something that only occurred after the Parliamentary Ombudsman had commenced her review. According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the prison is deserving of severe criticism for its processing of the individual’s visits. She also expresses criticism of how the prison dealt with the inmate’s repeated questions concerning how he could go about actually arranging visits from his family.

Summary of the decision: Karolinska University Hospital commissioned a review of elements of women’s healthcare at the hospital. The results of the investigation were sent to the home of the hospital’s then CEO. The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman notes that such a procedure is very rarely justified and, as a point of departure, highly inappropriate. This particularly applies when there is significant public interest in insight and scrutiny. Furthermore, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman states that this approach may give rise to suspicions that a public authority is attempting to circumvent the principle of public access to official documents, with the concomitant risk of seriously damaging trust.

The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman criticises the hospital for delaying the registration of a document and for its slow processing of a request for the disclosure of official documents.

Summary of the decision: In order for a regional health authority to charge a patient for failing to attend a healthcare appointment, the appointment must have been agreed. The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman notes that an invitation offering a reserved time for a COVID-19 vaccination does not constitute an agreed appointment, The health centre Närhälsan Slottskogen is criticised for stating in such an invitation that the patient will be invoiced should she or he fail to attend the appointment without cancelling it in advance. Furthermore, when there are no legal grounds for charging a fee, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman considers providing such information to be incompatible with the Instrument of Government’s requirement for objectivity.

Summary of the decision: The Parliamentary Ombudsman has reviewed the Swedish Migration Agency’s processing times. The review looked at processing times in general for four types of case (citizenship and residence permits based on connections to someone in Sweden, higher education or work), as well as five individual complaints.

The cases that have previously caused the Swedish Migration Agency major problems are those related to citizenship and residence permits based on connections to someone in Sweden. The Parliamentary Ombudsman notes that the backlog of cases remains very high. In the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s opinion, the situation is completely unacceptable.

Previous reviews by the Parliamentary Ombudsmen have not included residence permits for higher education and labour-market cases. The Swedish Migration Agency has clearly prioritised cases related to higher education and highly qualified labour, and there is no need for the Parliamentary Ombudsman to comment on processing times for these types of cases. In terms of other labour-market cases, there remains a large backlog of cases.
The Parliamentary Ombudsman notes that there remains an obvious need for greater effort so that the Swedish Migration Agency can get to grips with its long processing times. Withe regard to the individual complaints, the Swedish Migration Agency is criticised for slow and passive administration.

JO intends to continue to monitor the Swedish Migration Agency’s processing times. A copy of the decision is therefore sent to the Government Offices of Sweden for information.

Summary of the decision: The Lernacken customs checkpoint beside the Øresund Bridge was visited during an inspection of Swedish Customs. This is an internal border checkpoint, i.e., on the border between EU Member States. It emerged that the driver and any passengers in vehicles subject to a routine search were also subject to a pat-down search, and held in a room comparable with a cell while the vehicle was searched, and that possessions such as mobile phones were temporally seized.

In this enquiry, the Parliamentary Ombudsman has investigated whether Swedish Customs has the necessary legal authority to take such coercive measures when conducting checks at the internal border. The Parliamentary Ombudsman’s conclusion is that this is not the case.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman underlines that Swedish Customs must review how these checks are carried out and ensure that the measures taken are legal. According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, there is reason to send a copy of the decision to the Government for information.