frsrdg · GP04JO1 · 2002-01-01 00:00:00 — Pennlöv has dealt with matters concerning the prisons, the armed forces, taxation, customs, the execution of judgements, social insurance and chief guardians. has supervised the fields of social welfare, public health and care and education. , finally, has been responsible for the supervision of the administrative courts, and construction, immigration, administration of foreign affairs, environmental protection, farming and protection of animals, labour market, and all additional aspects of civil administration not supervised by any other Parliamentary Ombudsman. During the year, 4 644 new cases were registered with the Ombudsmen; 4 511 of them were complaints and other cases received (a decrease by 115 compared to the number of cases received during the previous year) and 133 were cases initiated by the Ombudsmen themselves on the basis of observations made during inspections, of newspaper reports or on other grounds. 4 750 cases were concluded during the period; out of them 4 617 were complaint cases and other cases received, whereas 133 were cases initiated by the Ombudsmen themselves. It should be noted that the schedules overleaf show cases concluded during the period, not all cases lodged. This summary also comprises full reports of some of the cases dealt with by the Ombudsmen during the period. Schedule of cases initiated by the Ombudsmen and concluded during the period 1 2000-30 2001 Activity concerned Closed without final criticism Admoni-tions or other criticism Preliminary criminal inves-tigation; no prosecution Referred to other agencies or stateorgans Proposal to Parlia-ment or to the Go- vernment Total Courts 1 4 - - - 5 Public prosecutors 4 7 1 - - 12 authorities 5 31 1 1 - 38 Armed forces 1 4 - - - 5 Prison administration 4 10 - - - 14 Social welfare 1 8 - - - 9 care 1 5 - - - 6 Social insurance - 12 - - 1 13 Labour market 1 1 - - - 2 Education, culture 1 3 - - - 4 Taxation, customs 1 5 - - - 6 Environmental ma-nagement, public health, protection of animals - 2 - - - 2 Planning, construction - 1 - - - 1 Communications - 1 - - - 1 Immigration 1 1 - - - 2 County Boards - 1 - - - 1 Chief guardians - 8 - - - 8 Employment of civil servants 1 - - - - 1 Access to official documents, Freedom of the press - 3 - - - 3 Total 22 107 2 1 1 133 Schedule of complaint cases concluded during the period 1 2000-30 2001 Activity concerned Dismissed with-out investiga-tion Referred to other agencies or state organs No cri-tisism after in-vestiga-tion Admoni-tions or other criticism Prosecu-tions or discipli-nary pro-ceedings Proposal to Parlia-ment or Govern- ment Total Courts of law 109 - 167 7 - - 283 Administrative courts 38 - 31 2 - - 71 Public prosecutors 78 8 117 8 - - 211 authorities 212 27 235 28 - - 502 Armed forces 7 - 3 3 - - 13 Prison administration 299 - 153 38 - - 490 Social welfare 237 8 328 87 - - 660 care 151 5 79 16 - - 251 Social insurance 120 - 123 39 - - 282 Labour market etc. 54 2 52 7 - - 115 Planning, construction 50 - 19 22 - - 91 Execution of judgements 86 - 38 9 - - 133 Local government 61 - 22 8 - - 91 Communications 73 - 38 18 - - 129 Taxation, customs 103 1 60 19 - - 183 Education, culture 71 4 101 35 - - 211 Church 1 - - - - - 1 Chief guardians 21 - 13 5 - - 39 Agriculture, environ- mental management, public health, protection of animals 53 - 45 16 - - 114 Immigration 65 - 29 10 - - 104 Other cases at County administrative boards, control of lotteries e.a. 6 - 7 2 - - 15 Employment of civil servants etc. 55 1 16 8 - - 80 Access to official documents, Freedom of the press 86 2 123 98 - - 309 Administration of Parliamentary and foreign affairs; General elections 16 - 4 1 - - 21 Miscellaneous 35 - 28 2 1 - 66 Complaints outside jurisdiction, complaints of obscure meaning 86 - - - - - 86 Total 2 173 58 1 831 488 1 - 4 551 The question of whether there was any basis in law for a decision to authorise a vehicle search After an anonymous complaint had been received by the Parliamentary Ombudsman and inspection had been made of the documentation concerning the case at the Authority in the County of , the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman, . , decided to launch an enquiry into suspected abuse of authority. Initially, three officers and an inspector were questioned. The enquiry was then terminated as there no longer existed any reason to assume that a crime had been committed. These interviews and other aspects of the enquiry revealed the following. Just before 11 p.m. on 1 2000, a call was made to the saying that shots had been fired in a specified flat and that a woman who was identified by name had sustained injury and was still in the flat. When the checked the alarm by ringing the number from which it came, they could only reach a Finnish-speaking cell phone answering service. Inspector was instructed to take charge of the operation and ordered to go to the address. On arriving there he requested, among other things, a warrant to conduct a vehicle search. The senior officer on duty, Inspector , decided to authorise such searches. The warrant was intended to enable searches to be made of vehicles leaving the residential area in which the flat was situated. The search was conducted by stopping each vehicle, noting down its registration number and inspecting the drivers licence. The officers also made an overall inspection to see if anything looked suspicious. In no case was the vehicles boot opened, nor was any vehicle searched internally. A search was made of the flat using the door keys. During this search the owner of the flat was discovered asleep. There were no visible indications or any other evidence to suggest that the events reported to the had ever taken place. The owner of the flat could offer no explanation of the alarm. In his adjudication of 2000, The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman, . , included the following observations. The decision to authorise the search of vehicles In the course of a search for someone who is to be apprehended, taken into custody or arrested on suspicion of having committed or attempted to commit a crime for which the prescribed penalty is no less than four years imprisonment, searches may be made of vehicles at a specified location, if there is particular reason to believe that this is on a route that may be taken by the wanted individual (Chapter 28, Section 2a of the Code of Judicial Procedure). An assessment of this likelihood must always be made before a warrant can This provision may be invoked, for example, to authorise searches along possible escape routes from the scene of a crime (Fitger, [The Code of Judicial Procedure], volume 2, p. 28 10b). My enquiry has shown that Inspector decided to issue a warrant to search vehicles leaving the area in which the flat was situated. This decision was based on his assessment that it was possible that a crime of the gravity referred to in 28.2a of the Code of Judicial Procedure had been committed and that there was a risk of the perpetrator leaving the area in a vehicle. The fundamental requirement for the issue of a warrant to search vehicles is that the wanted individual will be subject to the coercive measures stipulated in the provision, in other words that they will be detained, taken into custody or arrested. The wording "shall be detained or taken into custody" refers to the execution of a warrant issued for the detention or committal of an individual (cf. what is said about the meaning of this wording on page 66 of The Parliamentary Ombudsmans Annual Report 1993/94). On the other hand the term "arrested" refers to the decision of a officer to make an arrest. One example of a situation of this kind would be an attempt to escape by car or some other vehicle by a suspect who may be arrested by virtue of the first paragraph of Section 7 of Chapter 24 of the Code of Judicial Procedure and is for this reason being pursued by the . In the case in question no arrest warrants or detention orders had been issued. was there any possibility of the arrest of a suspect who had been observed and whose whereabouts were known to the . The enquiry makes it clear that the had not received any information at all about the miscreant. In other words, the identity of the miscreant - if indeed there was any miscreant - was totally unknown to the . This alone makes it clear that on this occasion there was no basis in law for the application of the provisions of 28.2a of the Code of Judicial Procedure. The interviews with Inspector and Officers and reveal, however, that the search authorised by merely involved visual inspection through the car windows of the vehicles that had been stopped, with a record being made of their registration numbers and, in some cases, of the identity documents of the drivers. The did not, on the other hand, conduct any internal examination of the vehicles, their boots or any other concealed areas in an attempt to find the miscreant. described the search as a "superficial, cursory inspection". As has already been made clear, described the procedure outlined above as a vehicle search. has also used the same expression and even went so far as to file a written report of the observations made in a document headed "Search conducted in accordance with 28.2a of the Procedural Code". It is clear, in other words, that these officers misunderstood the import of the provisions concerning searches of vehicles. I therefore assume that this has now been made clear to the officers concerned. In this context I would like to draw attention to the fact that according to Section 22 of the Act (1984:387) in certain circumstances offi cers are authorised to stop a vehicle or some other form of transport. This provision enables a officer to stop some means of transport if there is reason to believe that someone travelling in it has committed a felony. The requirement that there must be concrete suspicion that one of the travellers has committed a felony means that the are not empowered to stop transport solely to enable an investigation to be made (see , Polislagen [The Act], 3rd edition, p. 141 f. and page 109 of the annotated edition of the Act published by ). Once it had transpired from the information given by and that the inspection of the vehicles had been conducted in the described above, there were no longer any reasons to assume that the had abused their authority in this respect. However, as my comments reveal, this cannot be taken to mean that the procedure was an acceptable one. A "laser pen" belonging to a pupil was confiscated by the staff of a primary school and almost eighteen months elapsed before it was returned. The question of the lawfulness of the confiscation and criticism of the delay in returning the pen. (Registration number 2415-1999) complained to the Parliamentary Ombudsman about in the municipality of . He asserted that the school had confiscated a laser pen belonging to T., his son. After the school had refused to return the pen to T., M.H. complained to the that it had exceeded its powers and acted unlawfully. The started an investigation but then shelved the case. His son did not regain his pen for almost eighteen months. On 17 1999 the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman, . , issued his adjudication (registration number 2329-1999) on M.Hs complaint against the authority in the county of and the Regional Prosecution Office in . The complaint was referred to in the Municipality of so that it could investigate the allegation and respond. In its response the council stated as follows (references to appendices have been omitted). has examined the documents, and its chief executive has interviewed the principal of the school and the school superintendent for the area at that time. Schools are responsible for the safety and welfare of their pupils during school hours. School premises are not open to the public and are subject to regulations that have been laid down to ensure the well-being and safety of all those who use them. At times pupils take objects to school with them that can be dangerous for other people if they are used in the corridors or classrooms. This applies, for instance, to water pistols, knives and fireworks, and at one period it was popular for pupils to take laser pens to school. When pupils are promoted to the upper level of the compulsory school system at the age of 13, they receive a school catalogue with information about their school and also the school rules and a code of conduct. Pupils take these catalogues home with them so that their parents also have access to this information. During the whole of their school career pupils participate in discussions and are continually given information about the importance of showing respect and consideration for other people and the consequences of not doing so. They are also admonished if they bring objects that can be dangerous to school with them. In most cases this is enough as the pupils understand and accept the arguments given to them. In this specific case, the schools staff acted on the basis of the rules that were in force. The teacher confiscated the laser pen and handed it in to the principals office. As its return was not requested at the end of the term, it remained in the school safe even though the principal responsible believed that it had been returned in the usual way. When it was discovered that the pen was still in the school, it was handed over to the . Routines have been improved since this occurred so that now objects are labelled, the pupils given a receipt and their parents or guardians informed in writing. In the opinion of the , the reactions of the schools to issues of this kind are based on the mutual agreement of pupils, parents and school staff about how people should treat each other in school and a shared interest in avoiding injuries. In most cases this co-operation functions extremely well. Unfortunate circumstances in this case resulted in the failure of the parents to request the return of the confiscated object at the customary time (the end of term) so that it remained in the school safe. This, combined with the principals belief that it had been returned, resulted in an unnecessary delay. Routines have been improved to prevent this from happening again. was given an opportunity to comment on this response. In her adjudication of 16 2001, the Parliamentary Ombudsman, . , made the following observations. It may happen that pupils bring objects to school that can be harmful for themselves, other people or the school premises. In the same way, pupils may bring with them objects that - depending on how they are used - can be considered unsuitable on school premises, such as cell phones and toys of various kinds. One legal provision that clearly prohibits the possession of certain objects on school premises is the first paragraph of Section 1 of the Act on the Prohibition of Knives and Other Dangerous Objects (1988:254). This stipulates that it is illegal to possess knives, other stabbing or slashing weapons or other objects intended to be used as weapons in crimes against the health and safety of an individual on premises in which education at the compulsory school level or upper-secondary level is provided. The provisions of the Weapons Act (1996:67) apply to firearms, ammunition and also certain other objects that can be equated with firearms. Schools can lay down their own rules about the kinds of objects pupils are not allowed to possess or use on school premises for reasons of safety or good order. In this context the provisions of the Work Environment Act (1977:1160) may, for instance, be of interest. This Act also applies to schools and to some considerable extent to pupils as well. The first paragraph of Section 2 of Chapter 3 stipulates that employers shall take every measure needed to prevent the exposure of employees (pupils) to ill health or accidents. School rules of the kind referred to here may not, of course, be worded so that they conflict with the laws or any other statutes. In cases where pupils fail to comply with these rules, as this case clearly shows, the question then arises of what kind of measures the staff of the school are entitled to take. The regulations pertaining to the sanctions that may be invoked against pupils in the compulsory school system can be found in Sections 9 and 10 of Chapter 6 of (1994:1194). These disciplinary methods consist of admonition, expulsion, detention, reporting culprits to the principal or referral to a pastoral care conference. There are no provisions in law that explicitly entitle schools to confiscate property for reasons of safety or good order. Convention (dated 4 1950) for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Convention) and its additional protocols has had the force of law in since January 1 1995. Article 1 of the first additional protocol states that every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his or her possessions. No one shall be deprived of her or his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. The second paragraph of the same article goes on to say, however, that these provisions shall in no way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties. Confiscation is a coercive measure which is one example of a limitation of the right to use possessions and is subject to the regulations not only of the Code of Judicial Procedure but also to a large number of other legal provisions. In addition, there are a number of regulations in various Acts that enable possessions to be impounded without being confiscated. The official response indicates that the routine at was for confiscated objects to be retained and not returned to pupils until the end of the term. This procedure is not in my opinion acceptable. It almost certainly involves a restriction of the enjoyment of possessions of the kind that according to Article 1 of the first protocol to Convention requires some basis in law. As has been pointed out above, no such basis in law can be found where the educational system is concerned. Even if the school against which the complaint was made had followed its own routines in this case, its actions would still, therefore, have been open to criticism. The questions raised by this case also give me reason to make the following observation. It may not be unusual for situations to arise in schools which oblige the staff to intervene because a pupil has some object which either disturbs the teaching or is dangerous. The regulations concerning emergencies in the Criminal Code justify the confiscation of an object in order to avert imminent danger. In cases where possession of the object concerned is prohibited by law, the staff of a school can seek the assistance of the , who are empowered to confiscate the object. When it comes to the possibility of taking measures with regard to other kinds of objects and situations which are not serious enough to be considered emergencies, the legal situation would appear to be rather unclear. If it is considered that the regulations referred to above concerning disciplinary measures have been exhausted or cannot be applied, it could be thought that the staff of a school should - in the utmost extreme - have the possibility of taking custody of the object for however long it takes to deal with the problem. To what extent the various ordinances on education should be supplemented is an issue that may be of interest to the Ministry concerned. A copy of this adjudication will therefore be forwarded to the . This closes the case. The question of the choice of a home for a two-year-old girl whose mother had been sentenced to a long term in prison, deportation from on completion of the sentence and prohibition from ever returning to the country. (Registration number 2734-2000) M., who was born in 1991, is the daughter of K.K., a citizen of . arrived in together with her daughter in . On 11 1993 she was arrested and in of the same year convicted of a serious narcotics offence and sentenced to twelve years in prison. The judgment also stipulated that on completion of the sentence K.K. was to be deported from and prohibited from ever returning to the country. served most of her prison sentence at the prison at Hinseberg, but was transferred in 2000 to Färingsö prison in for the remainder of her sentence. In 1993, M. was placed in an emergency home as laid down in the Act (1980:620) but in of the same year she was moved to a home in the Municipality of . Since then she has been living in the same home. of the Municipality of decided on January 16 2001 to apply to the district court to transfer the custody of M. to her parents. I.C., who is the prison chaplain at Hinseberg, submitted a complaint to Parliamentary Ombudsman relating to several aspects of the way in which the social welfare authorities in had dealt with Ms case. He raised doubts, for instance, about what considerations had preceded the decision to place M. in the home and alleged that had not provided K.K. with adequate information about the emotional ties that were likely to arise between M. and her parents and which would render it more or less impossible for her to return to with her mother when she completed her sentence. also alleged that had not acted directly enough to ensure that K.K. had adequate contact with her daughter and that as a result of language difficulties, for instance, the Board had failed to fulfil its obligation to make sure that K.K. was informed of circumstances that affected M. This complaint was forwarded to for its investigation and response. was also requested to ensure that its investigation should indicate what considerations had preceded the placement of M. in the home concerned and what actions had been taken by the Board during the period of care to ensure, for instance, that M. retained contact with her mother. submitted as its response an official report drawn up by , a senior social worker, and , a social worker. This report contained among other things a detailed description of the deliberations of in connection with the selection of a home for M. and what had been done to maintain contacts between K.K. and her daughter. submitted a response to the Boards statement. In her adjudication of January 22 2001, the Parliamentary Ombudsman, . , made the following observations. According to the regulations for the activities of the Parliamentary Ombudsman, events or circumstances that date back more than two years should not normally be examined unless there are special reasons for doing so. The home placement of M. took place in of 1993. I have, how-ever, found that special grounds exist for disregarding this principle and extending my examination to include the selection of the home by actions taken by the Board during the intervening period to ensure that M. maintained contact with her mother. During the initial period after K.Ks arrest, M. lived with her mother at Färingsö prison in . When this was no longer possible, it became incumbent on to arrange for Ms future care. It is no easy matter for the social services to make arrangements for the care of a child while its parent is serving a long prison sentence, not least when the parent is to be deported from on completion of the sen-tence. In such cases, the social services face major problems when planning for the childs future and there are in principle two alternatives open to them. One is to allow, in consultation with the parent, a relative or someone else in their native country to take custody of the child. If a solution of this kind is not possible or suitable the child has to be placed in a home in during the period of the sentence.