frsrdg · GN04JO1 · 2000-01-01 00:00:00 — The statement submitted by Per included the following points. The routine procedure in the authority is to send a copy of the decision to rescind a confiscation order to the authoritys storage facilities, with a second copy going to the individual concerned at the address registered in the record of the preliminary enquiry. The wording of this notification is in Swedish alone. The notification states that the confiscation order has been rescinded and that the items concerned can be collected after arrangements have been made by telephone with the officer responsible. After a few months, a reminder is sent to the address used previously, unless information has been received to say that this address no longer applies. This reminder is also in Swedish. . The routines that normally apply were followed in dealing with the case in question. During 1996 R.B. was detained on suspicion of theft or alternatively receiving stolen goods. In connection with his arrest, certain items had been confiscated. This confiscation had been set aside on 26 1997 by the prosecutor at the same time as it was decided not to proceed with the preliminary enquiry. The decision to rescind the confiscation was sent to the storage facility and on 1997 notification was sent to R.Bs address in . As he did not reply, a reminder was sent to the same address. Both the notification and the reminder were in Swedish, and they should have been translated into Polish. Otherwise there is nothing else to indicate that the case should have been dealt with differently. was given the opportunity to issue a power of attorney to empower a relative or his counsel to undertake collection of the confiscated items. This was not taken advantage of. . A change in the routines of the authority could be proposed so that a simplified translation of the contents of a notification could be attached when sent to addresses outside . The translations could be made into the three languages used most frequently in this context, English, German and Polish, and they could be of a general nature so that they could be attached to every notification irrespective of the personal information and other specific details. In addition, the decision not to continue with the preliminary investigation and the rescission of the confiscation order should be communicated to suspects in languages which they understand. This, however, is a matter for the prosecution agency. One of the additional points made by was the following. The routine adopted when notification is sent to an address abroad should be altered so that a translation is made to the appropriate language. In this case, such a routine would have meant formulating the notification in Polish. A template for the most frequently used languages could easily be drawn up. The authority was considering the introduction of such a routine. also submitted a rejoinder to the responses received. In his adjudication 3 1998, the Chief Parliamentary Ombuds-man, . , included the following remarks. If the grounds for confiscation no longer exist, 27.8.1 of the Procedural Code stipulates that it is to be set aside immediately. The confiscated items should then, in principle, be returned to the individual in possession of them when they were seized. This case has raised the question of what action is required of a authority when the individual to whom the items are to be return-ed is living outside and does not understand Swedish. The Administrative Procedure Act (1986:233), contains regulations about what kind of services authorities are obliged to provide, (Art. 4), about general demands applying to the way cases are dealt with (Art. 7) and about interpretation (Art. 8). According to 4.1 of the Administrative Procedure Act, every authority is to provide individuals with information, guidance, advice and similar assistance in questions lying within the authoritys competence. This assistance is to be provided to the extent appropriate with regard to the nature of the issue, the help needed by the individual and the authoritys activities. One of the provisions of Art. 7 is that every case involving an individual is to be dealt with as simply, rapidly and cheaply as possible without jeopardizing security and that the authority is to strive to use language that is easy to understand and in other respects facilitate contacts between individuals and the authority. The provisions in Articles 4 and 7 also apply to the authorities in activities carried out in the prevention of crime. According to Art. 8 of the Administrative Procedure Act, where necessary an authority is to employ the services of an interpreter when dealing, for instance, with someone who does not understand Swedish. This regulation is also intended to apply to the translation of documents issued by authorities into foreign languages (see , Nya Förvaltningslagen med kommentarer, 4th ed. Art. 32 of the Administrative Procedure Act establishes that Art. 8 does not apply to the activities of authorities in the prevention of crime. As the provisions on the return of confiscated goods can be found in the regulations in the Procedural Code concerning the coercive measures to be employed in criminal cases, from a formal point of view they are covered by the exceptions stipulated in Art. 32 of the Administrative Procedure Act. In fact, however, the procedures concerned are so close to normal administrative procedures that it would appear natural for the authorities in cases of this kind to assess the issue of translation on the basis of the approach expressed in Art. 8 of the Administrative Procedure Act. Moreover, when, in its activities in the prevention of crime, a authority has to deal with someone who does not understand Swedish, it is unlikely that it can discharge its obligations in accordance with Articles 4 and 7 of the Administrative Procedure Act, if it does not arrange for the interpreting and translation required. In the case in question, information was sent in Swedish by a authority to a Polish citizen living in . As far as can be seen from the enquiry, there was nothing in the case to suggest that R.B. understood Swedish or that he could arrange translation of the documents without a great deal of difficulty. In my opinion, therefore, the authority should have arranged for a translation that was at least adequate to ensure that R.B. was not deprived of his legal rights. I therefore share the opinion of the authority on this matter, and I have no objection to the proposed modification of the routines in dealing with cases of this kind described in the statement. Enligt det från för-säk-rings-kas-san inkomna beskedet skickar -kas-san underrättelse om socialförsäkringsnämndens beslut från nämndens sammanträde. Det kan dock uppstå dröjsmål med beslutet om beräkning av förmånen. Mot bakgrund av vad JO tidigare uttalat samt Riks-för-säk-rings-ver-kets rekommendationer beslutade JO Pennlöv att i ett initiativärende ytterligare utreda för-säk-rings-kas-sans rutiner i detta hänseende (dnr 2318-1999). * Bestämmelsen felaktigt återgiven; JO:s anm. Detta gäller om inte särskilda skäl talar emot det. Regeringen föreslog i prop. 1998/99:78 - såvitt här är aktuellt - att ordet "återbetalnings-skyldighet" i 30 § första stycket USL skulle ersättas med ordet "återbetalningsbelopp". beslutade om ändring av lagen i bl.a. detta avseende, 1998/99:SfU09, rskr. 1998/99:235. Lagändringen träder i kraft .