The Social Welfare Board in Säffle municipality is criticised for infringing an individual’s freedom of expression in connection with the processing of a case under the Social Services Act

Summary of the decision: A Social Welfare Board stated in a letter to an individual that an authorised intervention in the form of drug testing would be terminated, because the individual had, among other things, disseminated negative information about social services’ activities on social media, which she was also asked to cease immediately. After the individual requested that the testing be resumed, the board sent another letter requiring the individual, as a condition for the continuation of the testing, not to write negative comments about social services staff on social media.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman states that an individual who applies for and is granted an intervention by an authority may be considered to be in a dependent relationship with the authority. In this case, the board had granted assistance in the form of testing, and the Parliamentary Ombudsman considers that the individual thus found themselves in a dependent relationship such that the prohibition of reprisals applies.

According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the contents of the first letter cannot be understood in any other way than that it was sent to the individual because she used her freedom of expression to criticise the social services on social media. It is also clear that the testing was ceased because of this. The measure constituted an unauthorised reprisal by the board, according to the Parliamentary Ombudsman. In terms of the second letter, it is clear, in the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s view, that the purpose was to prevent the individual from continuing to criticise the board on social media. The contents of the letter therefore constituted an infringement of the individual’s freedom of expression. The Parliamentary Ombudsman takes the incident seriously and the authority is criticised for its actions.

According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, by cancelling the testing, the board changed a favourable administrative decision to the detriment of the individual without a legal basis for doing so. The authority is also criticised for this.