Decisions
The result of an investigation by a Parliamentary Ombudsman is documented in a decision or protocol.
The decisions or protocols include statements by Parliamentary Ombudsmen that clarify whether the public authority concerned has acted in accordance with the law or not. If the public authority has acted incorrectly, the ombudsman will issue criticism that may be directed against the authority as well as an individual public official. Of all complaints filed each year, about 10 per cent are concluded with some form of criticism. The ombudsmen may also conduct investigations on their own initiative – in other words enquiries may be started even if no complaint has been filed.
The ombudsmen’s decisions are not legally binding, which means that the public authority does not officially have to comply with the ombudsmen’s criticism. In practice however, this is almost always the case. Public authorities benefit from the opinions issued by the ombudsmen, the opinions are often used to improve an authority’s internal procedures and rules.
The media also takes great interest in the ombudsmen’s decisions. The media continuously monitors the ombudsmen’s work.
Published decisions
Criticism of Nybro, Emmaboda, Torsås and Uppvidinge Municipalities’ joint Chief Guardian Board for collecting information about relatives of a guardian when it was not required
Go to decision about Criticism of Nybro, Emmaboda, Torsås and Uppvidinge Municipalities’ joint Chief Guardian Board for collecting information about relatives of a guardian when it was not requiredSevere criticism of the Municipal Executive Board in Vindeln Municipality for its handling of a request for access to official documents
Go to decision about Severe criticism of the Municipal Executive Board in Vindeln Municipality for its handling of a request for access to official documentsCriticism of Sweden’s embassy in London for inadequate service and accessibility in terms of bookable appointments for passport applications
Go to decision about Criticism of Sweden’s embassy in London for inadequate service and accessibility in terms of bookable appointments for passport applicationsCriticism of several Prison and Probation Service sites for giving prisoners' mail and documents to the wrong person
Go to decision about Criticism of several Prison and Probation Service sites for giving prisoners' mail and documents to the wrong personSevere criticism of the Prison and Probation Service, Kumla Prison, for unauthorised eavesdropping on a telephone conversation between an inmate and his lawyer; also statements on inmates’ participation in hearings via video link
Go to decision about Severe criticism of the Prison and Probation Service, Kumla Prison, for unauthorised eavesdropping on a telephone conversation between an inmate and his lawyer; also statements on inmates’ participation in hearings via video linkSevere criticism of the Prison and Probation Service, Sörbyn Prison, for having induced an inmate to use a catheter for a urine test
Go to decision about Severe criticism of the Prison and Probation Service, Sörbyn Prison, for having induced an inmate to use a catheter for a urine testCriticism of a senior judge at Malmö District Court for disclosing in a criminal judgment confidential information about victims
Go to decision about Criticism of a senior judge at Malmö District Court for disclosing in a criminal judgment confidential information about victimsWithout a legal basis, the Police Authority disclosed information on persons deemed to have connections to criminal gangs with the aim of preventing them from visiting certain pubs (‘the pub list’)
Go to decision about Without a legal basis, the Police Authority disclosed information on persons deemed to have connections to criminal gangs with the aim of preventing them from visiting certain pubs (‘the pub list’)Statements on the Board of Agriculture’s ability to charge differentiated fees depending on the application method at the time of registration; also criticism of the agency for inadequate and incorrect information about the ability to pay the fee in cash
Go to decision about Statements on the Board of Agriculture’s ability to charge differentiated fees depending on the application method at the time of registration; also criticism of the agency for inadequate and incorrect information about the ability to pay the fee in cashAnnual reports
Last updated at 2024-03-05