An individual applied to the municipality for an increase in personal assistance in accordance with the Act (1993:387) on support and services for disabled people. A decision in the case was issued only after around nine months.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman states in the decision that the processing time in the case was too long and that the current Municipal Executive Board deserves to be criticised for its slow processing. The Parliamentary Ombudsman further states that during the processing of the case the Municipal Executive Board failed to apply both sections 11 and 12 of the Administrative Procedure Act (2017:900). This is because it did not carry out a detailed assessment of whether the decision in the case would be significantly delayed or whether there were grounds for informing the individual of the possibility of bringing an action for delay. The Municipal Executive Board was also criticised for this.

In an estate inventory case at the Swedish Tax Agency, no registration of the estate inventory took place, despite the fact almost four and a half years had passed since the death. In the decision, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman directs criticism at the Swedish Tax Agency for its passive management of the case.

The measures the Swedish Tax Agency can take when an estate inventory is not received are to impose a fine or appoint a special estate inventory officer. An order for a penalty fine must be served on the addressee. The Swedish Tax Agency applies a procedure whereby a notice of a penalty fine must be served by ordinary service, and if this fails, summons service may only be used in exceptional cases. In other cases, estate inventory cases are given a lower priority.

The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman states that the procedure appears to lead to most cases being given lower priority already at the point the ordinary service has failed, and that the Swedish Tax Authority is thus not exhausting the available service options. The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman questions whether this reluctance to use a process server is compatible with the requirement that the Tax Agency ensure an estate inventory is carried out and filed. According to the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman, there are grounds for the Swedish Tax Agency to review its procedures.

Having received several complaints against the Lantmäteriet (the Swedish mapping, cadastral and land registration authority) about the slow processing of applications for permits for the dissemination of geographical data, the Parliamentary Ombudsman decided to examine the matter in an own-initiative case.

According to the Lantmäteriet, the number of applications for dissemination permits had increased sharply in recent years and the authority had then taken several measures to streamline processing and reallocated resources internally. It became necessary, according to the Lantmäteriet, to give lower priority to the granting of dissemination permits, which meant that cases could no longer be processed within a reasonable time. From the beginning of May 2022 until the middle of January 2023, the processing time increased from 5 to 71 working days.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman states that it is essential that applications for dissemination permits are processed in a satisfactory manner, and recalls that cases must be examined both thoroughly and efficiently and without compromising legal certainty. As the processing times for the applications (made in the second half of 2022/beginning of 2023) at issue in these complaints were not reasonable, the Parliamentary Ombudsman finds that the Lantmäteriet cannot escape criticism.

An employee failed to manage the requests made by inmates and, among other things, answered inmates on a post-it note without a signature. In the decision, the Parliamentary Ombudsman stresses the importance of carrying out, in every individual case, a thorough assessment of whether a request can be handled on the basis of the Swedish Prison and Probation Service’s service obligations or whether it is a formal matter. Furthermore, the Parliamentary Ombudsman recalls that the Swedish Prison and Probation Service should be generous in permitting conversations between an inmate and a lawyer who is assisting the inmate with a legal matter and that such a conversation can be of an urgent nature.

In May 2020, the Parliamentary Ombudsmen criticised the Administrative Court in Malmö for the slow processing of a case involving occupational injury insurance and a so-called dental case. In August 2021, the Parliamentary Ombudsmen directed criticism towards the Administrative Court for the slow processing of two cases regarding sickness benefit and one case on culling. In the latter decision, the Parliamentary Ombudsmen observed that the court had continued its efforts to address processing times and that the situation in December 2020 had improved somewhat. However, the Parliamentary Ombudsmen were of the view that the processing times for several case categories, particularly social security cases, were still too long, and gave cause for concern.

In this decision, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman once again directs criticism towards the Administrative Court for the slow processing of a case. The processing time for the case, which concerned personal assistance under the Act concerning Support and Service for Persons with Certain Functional Impairments (“LSS”), amounted to one year and nine months. According to the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman, this was an unacceptably long time.

The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman observes that the Administrative Court has continued to take measures to address processing times in general, and in LSS and social security cases (among others) in particular. The number of pending cases also decreased between September 2022 and June 2023.

According to the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman, the processing times the court has now reported for the period June 2022 to May 2023 are still too long for several case categories. The turnaround times have also increased compared with 2020 for several types of cases. The situation is therefore still worrying, in the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman’s view. He therefore emphasises the importance of continuing the work to achieve shorter processing times and fewer pending cases, and of follow-up taking place continuously.

The decision is submitted to the Parliament, the Government and the National Courts Administration for information.