Summary of the decision: An individual made a request to the Swedish Public Employment Service for access to certain public documents. While the disclosure request was being processed, the Swedish Public Employment Service informed the individual that, on the grounds of confidentiality, they needed to visit the agency’s office and identify themselves in order to then receive the documents there. No visit took place and the individual was informed instead that the documents would undergo a confidentiality assessment and be sent to her. However, they did not do so and the individual was advised that this was because the authority needed to ensure, among other things, that confidentiality rules had been followed. The Swedish Public Employment Service subsequently assessed that the documents were not subject to confidentiality and then sent them to the individual. By then, around three months had passed since the authority had received the individual’s request for disclosure.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman is critical of the Swedish Public Employment Service for providing different information about how and when the documents would be disclosed. According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the way the authority expressed itself meant the individual could get the impression she needed to go to the head office and identify herself in order to obtain the documents. How the matter was subsequently handled shows that there was no legal basis for such a requirement. The Swedish Public Employment Service is criticised for this and for not having disclosed the documents quickly enough.

In conclusion, the Parliamentary Ombudsman recalls that there is no legal basis for an authority to instruct an individual to make their request for the disclosure of a public document in a particular way, for example, that they must send it to a particular e-mail address or fill in a particular form.

Summary of the decision: A prison failed to process an application for leave properly. The inmate had his application returned to him with a post-it note with a short explanation and the message that he could “withdraw the application”. It is not clear what further information the inmate received in this context. The prison is criticised for its handling of the case.

In her decision, the Parliamentary Ombudsman also makes statements about the responsibility of the Prison and Probation Service when inmates need an eye test. She stresses that prisons have to take inmates’ complaints of problems with their sight seriously and ensure that inmates who need it are able to undergo an eye examination.

Summary of the decision: In a complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, complaints were made against Nyköping municipality on the grounds that the way schools are organised allows head teachers to make decisions on unlawful grounds, which cannot be appealed, to move pupils between schools within the same school unit.

It follows from Chapter 1, paragraph 3 of the Education Act that a school unit is a unit comprising activities in one or more school buildings located close to each other. Under Chapter 2, paragraph 10 of the Education Act, a head teacher may decide on the internal organisation of their unit and is responsible for allocating resources within the unit. A decision taken by the head teacher of this kind cannot be appealed.

The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman states that within Nyköping municipality, there are school units with school buildings that are not located close to each other and which therefore should not be school units under Chapter 1, paragraph 3 of the Education Act. A serious consequence of this is that legal guardians do not have the right to appeal decisions involving pupils moving between schools within the same unit. The Municipal Executive Board is criticised for not ensuring that the organisation of schools complies with the rules on school units in the Education Act.

Summary of the decision: On its own initiative, the Parliamentary Ombudsman reviewed the County Administrative Board’s processing of three recruitment cases which concerned a head of planning, an organisational developer and a head of department. The review was based on the requirements of objectivity and impartiality laid down in the Instrument of Government, as well as the provisions on conflict of interest in the Administrative Procedure Act.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman concludes that, in all three cases, the County Governor acted in a way that did not respect the requirement of objectivity. In addition, she had a conflict of interest in the case concerning the head of planning. There, the procedure was also flawed in terms of impartiality. According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, this indicates a lack of concern and a lack of respect for fundamental provisions which aim to maintain public trust in public services. The Parliamentary Ombudsman directs severe criticism against the County Governor for her actions.

Further, the Parliamentary Ombudsman criticises the County Administrative Board as an authority, because the recruitment of the head of planning was only announced on the authority’s physical notice board and for a very limited amount of time, and because the Swedish Public Employment Service was not notified of the recruitment.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman also makes statements on the importance of officials acting with integrity and highlights the risk of non-compliance with the provisions of the constitution, including when it is the head of the authority who does not comply with the rules.

Summary of the decision: A person visited the local police station in Gävle to report an offence and handed in a written report. However, it took almost ten months for the police to draw up a report. During that time, a detective inspector had contacted the person who made the report and questioned the criminal nature of the what they reported and discussed individual aspects of the description of the offence. The Parliamentary Ombudsman states that the inspector instead should have promptly ensured that the complaint was processed and allowed an investigator to consider any questions during a subsequent review.

The Police Authority is severely criticised for not initially dealing with the report with sufficient urgency and for taking an unacceptably long time to draw up a police report. The detective inspector is also criticised for their actions.

The investigation also revealed that the possibilities for reporting an offence at the police station in question were very limited. The Parliamentary Ombudsman emphasises what he has said in other contexts, that is, that a lack of accessibility can damage public trust in the police and reduce the willingness to report crime.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman also makes statements on an authority’s obligation to assist the Parliamentary Ombudsman when it is conducting a review.