Statement on when a decision should be made in writing. Also criticism of a regional forensic psychiatric clinic for unlawfully limiting patients’ opportunities to make telephone calls

Summary of the decision: Restrictions have routinely been imposed on the number and duration of telephone calls that patients on a ward of a regional forensic psychiatric clinic in Vadstena are permitted to make. The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman affirms that any such procedure constitutes a restriction on fundamental freedoms and rights, and that measures of this kind must have a legal basis. The clinic is criticised for implementing the procedure without any legal basis.

The clinic has reached an individual decision to restrict the right of patients to use electronic communication services. The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman states that, in cases when there is no regulation stating whether or not a decision must be in writing, a public authority must assess what is appropriate. The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman notes that, in most situations, such an assessment should result in the authority reaching a decision in writing. According to the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman, one point of departure must be that, generally speaking, a written decision is clearer to the affected individuals. Such a decision is easier to understand and one can return to it later when, for example, deciding whether to appeal against it. A written decision also reduces the risk of misunderstandings between public authorities and the individual. According to the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman, when assessing whether it is appropriate to make a decision in writing, a public authority must consider what the decision relates to and its effects on the individual. There are strong reasons for making any appealable decisions in writing.

The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman notes that, by nature, a decision to restrict the right of patients to use electronic communication services intrudes on their fundamental freedoms and rights. Such a decision may also be appealed to the courts and should therefore be in writing.