Criticism of Falu District Court for deficient processing of matters of secrecy. Also a statement that the court should have contacted the social welfare board that requested secrecy

Date of decision: 2025-02-14Decision case number: 8898-2023Decision maker: Erik Nymansson

Summary of the decision: On his own initiative, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman has reviewed Falu District Court’s processing of certain matters concerning secrecy in a custody case.

A social welfare committee applied for custody of a child to be transferred to two specially appointed guardians. In the documentation, it was stated that the committee was of the opinion that, among other things, the personal details and address information of the specially appointed guardians should be subject to secrecy with reference to the child’s safety, and that secrecy also applied to the respondent. With reference to the fact that the information was already disclosed with regard to the respondent, the district court sent all documents to them. The district court’s judgement – which among other things contained the names and personal identity numbers of the specially appointed guardians – contained no decision on secrecy. In its opinion to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the district court stated that the information in question had already been made public when the documents were sent to the respondent, and that thereafter the conditions for secrecy no longer existed.

The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman notes that information cannot be considered to have been made public solely on the grounds that it has been communicated to one party to a case. There was therefore reason for the district court to give further consideration to secrecy when adjudicating the case. Furthermore, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman states that the district court has failed in its processing by not stating applicable secrecy provisions. The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman is generally critical of the district court’s processing.

In his decision, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman states that it would have been appropriate for the court to contact the social welfare committee before issuing a summons to clarify the implications of the request for secrecy, or at least informed the committee of its position on whether secrecy applied.

Date of decision: 2025-02-25

Decision case number: 5218-2024

Decision maker: Per Lennerbrant

Summary of the decision: A defence counsel complained to the Parliamentary Ombudsman that, on two occasions in early summer 2024, they were denied access to their clients in a police custody suite in Malmö on the grounds of staff shortages.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman’s investigation has not provided a complete picture of the circumstances on the occasions that prompted the defence counsel’s complaint. However, the Parliamentary Ombudsman finds no reason to question the defence counsel’s information. It has also emerged that the occupancy rate at the custody suite was high and staff were under strain, as well as that there have been occasions on which it has not been possible to arrange meetings between defence counsel and clients. Based on the information in the complaint, the Parliamentary Ombudsman notes that, on the occasions in question, defence counsel was refused access to their clients in the custody suite, which is incompatible with a suspect’s right to meet with their defence counsel. The Parliamentary Ombudsman criticises the Swedish Police Authority accordingly.

Date of decision: 2025-02-13 Decision case number: 6204-2023 Decision maker: Thomas Norling

Summary of the decision: An individual had been granted assistance allowance and submitted a request for the municipality to arrange personal assistance. Referring to work environment and recruitment problems, the municipality chose to partly implement the intervention through short-stay accommodation.

According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, assistance rendered in short-term accommodation does not constitute the personalised support that the intervention personal assistance is intended to provide, nor can the staff performing the intervention for the individual be considered to be personal assistants in the meaning of the Act (1993:387) concerning Support and Services for Persons with Certain Functional Impairments. In the opinion of the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the municipality did not implement the intervention personal assistance while the individual was in short-stay accommodation. This implies that the individual did not receive personal assistance to the extent they were entitled, for which the municipality is deserving of criticism.

Date of decision: 2025-02-24 

Decision case number: 6899-2023

Decision maker: Katarina Påhlsson

Summary of the decision: In the course of the parliamentary Ombudsman’s supervision, it has become apparent that the views of district courts and chief guardians differ on the question of whether chief guardians are obliged to assist the courts with supporting documentation in actions to end administration. In this case, the Parliamentary Ombudsman has investigated whether chief guardians have such an obligation.

In the opinion of the Parliamentary Ombudsman, it is not self-evident that under applicable law chief guardians are obliged to submit a report concerning such actions when injuncted to do so by the district court. The relevant provisions of the Children and Parents Code (SFS 1949:381) are not entirely clear on the matter, nor does the legislative history or the Supreme Court’s case law explicitly support such an interpretation. That said, the Parliamentary Ombudsman believes that there are compelling reasons for chief guardians to comply with any such injunction from the court.

She also states that the difference of opinions between chief guardians and district courts on this matter may prolong proceedings and cause other problems that will ultimately be to the detriment of the individual. Moreover, when an administrative authority does not feel able to comply with a court injunction, it may have a negative impact on public confidence in both the courts and other authorities. In light of this, the Parliamentary Ombudsman finds reason to raise the matter of amending legislation with the Government.

In her decision, the Parliamentary Ombudsman also makes certain statements concerning the obligation of administrative authorities to comply with court rulings and injunctions.

Date of decision: 2025-02-28Decision case number: 5786-2024Decision maker: Erik Nymansson Summary of the decision: On a forensic psychiatric ward with security class 3, staff of Uppsala University Hospital in Region Uppsala routinely ask patients returning from leave or ground privileges to show the contents of their pockets and bags. The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman establishes that the procedure...