frsrdg · GZ04JO1 · 2011-11-16 00:00:00 — -kritik mot en kronofogde för ett otydligt besked till en hovrätt i en verk- ställighetsfråga och betydelsen av ett sådant besked för domstolens hand- läggning av ett inhibitionsyrkande 09/10:54 -skyldighet att verkställa en kammarrättsdom om bil- stöd 10/11:469 -kritik mot för bristande rutiner för bevakning och upp- följning av ett överklagat ärende i vilket kassan framställt yrkande om in- hibition 10/11:473 -verkställande av kommunala beslut som inte vunnit laga kraft 10/11:563, 568, 574 -fråga om polisen bort verkställa en dom om att avliva en hund, då hund- ägarens ombud uppgett att hon hade för avsikt att överklaga domen och begära inhibition 11/12:161 -fråga om vilandeförklaring i förvaltningsrätten kritik mot polismyndighet för att handläggningen av ett vapenärende uppskjutits i avvaktan på dom- stolsprövning av ett överklagande av myndighetens beslut i ett annat va- penärende 09/10:76 -fråga om och personal vid en skola borde ha biträtt en vård- nadshavare när denne avsåg att hämta sin dotter efter att domstol förordnat att han ensam skulle ha vårdnaden om flickan 11/12:419 -kritik mot för utformningen av en blankett för inhämtande av vårdnadshavares samtycke till vaccinering av skolelever mot den s.k. svininfluensan A(H1N1) 11/12:496 -handläggningen av ett vårdnadsmål kritik mot en domare för att denne vid en muntlig förberedelse ringde upp parternas barn samt mot annan do- mare för det sätt som utredningen efter huvudförhandlingen komplettera- des på 10/11:52 -skyldigheten att motivera interimistiska beslut avseende tvistiga frågor om vårdnad av barn m.m. 11/12:55 -fråga om och personal vid en skola borde ha biträtt en vård- nadshavare när denne avsåg att hämta sin dotter efter att domstol förordnat att han ensam skulle ha vårdnaden om flickan 11/12:419 -kritik mot en tjänsteman vid ett sjukhus för kränkning av anställdas yttran- defrihet 10/11:596 2 011 /1 2:JO1 B I L A G A 9 -fråga om en tjänsteman vid en socialförvaltning kränkt anställdas yttrande- frihet, m.m. 10/11:600 -ingripande mot en anställds yttrandefrihet 10/11:605 -yttrandefrihet i kommunala lokaler 10/11:622 -utrymmet för myndigheter att ge instruktioner för mediekontakter 10/11:613 -kritik mot polisen för att den inte lyckades säkerställa att demonstranter fick framföra sitt budskap allmänna uttalanden om polisingripanden vid ordningsstörningar i samband med motdemonstrationer 11/12:95 -kritik mot Forum för levande historia och med 11/12:605 -förbud mot fotografering och filmupptagning vid ett sammanträde som var öppet för allmänheten 11/12:600 -rätten att vistas i myndigheters lokaler, möjligheten att där ställa upp foto- graferings- och intervjuförbud m.m.; kritik mot Idrotts- och förenings- nämnden i 11/12:594 -remissyttrande: Ny yttrandefrihetsgrundlag? (SOU 2010:68) 11/12:569 -kritik mot dels en åklagare för att en försvarare inte tilläts närvara vid ett inledande förhör med en person som delgavs misstanke om mord, dels en polismyndighet för att åklagarens direktiv inför förhöret inte vidarebeford- rades till förhörsledarna 09/10:68 -den s.k. beslagsförbudsregelns tillämplighet beträffande elektroniska hand- lingar 09/10:80 -en läkarundersökning av en målsägande inom ramen för en förundersök- ning ska genomföras skyndsamt uttalanden rörande läkares samt polis och åklagares skyldigheter 09/10:92 -under en pågående brottsutredning har den misstänkte avlägsnats ur landet; utredning om åklagarens och handläggning av ärendet 09/10:222 -åklagares skyldighet att tillvarata en målsägandes intressen om dennes anspråk på skadestånd inte utretts tillräckligt under en förundersökning 09/10:115 -en åklagare har att i en förundersökning rörande tjänstefel i förekommande fall beakta den tidsfrist som gäller för att en fråga om disciplinansvar ska kunna prövas 09/10:119 -fråga om brev som skickats mellan två häktade personer fick granskas samt åklagares ansvar för att rättsliga förutsättningar för brevgranskning föreligger i fall då åklagaren bemyndigat polisman att verkställa gransk- ningen 10/11:96 -tillämpningen av bestämmelsen i 23 kap. 4 a § om förun- dersökningsbegränsning 10/11:103 -kritik mot en åklagare för att ett uttalande under en sakframställning inte kompletterades på visst sätt 10/11:119 B I L A G A 9 2 01 1/ 12 :J O 1 -kritik mot en åklagare dels för utformningen av ett beslut att inte inleda förundersökning, dels för att denne inte inledde förundersökning när kom- pletterande uppgifter inkom 10/11:155 -möjligheterna att besluta om besöksförbud när den som förbudet avser inte tidigare gjort sig skyldig till brott mot skyddspersonen eller annan person m.m. 11/12:86 -en åklagares vägran att låta en offentlig försvarare ta del av en häktnings- promemoria före häktningsförhandlingen 11/12:106 -uttalanden om vikten av snabba utredningsåtgärder när någon avlidit eller skadats allvarligt vid ett polisingripande 11/12:130 -en åklagares åtgärd att återkalla sitt överklagande när nya uppgifter kunde tyda på att utmätt straff var alltför strängt 11/12:135 -uttalanden om skyldigheten att kommunicera en begäran om besöksförbud innan ett sådant beslut meddelas 11/12:156 -kritik mot att ett beslag ägt rum hos en advokat samt uttalanden om ett beslut att inleda förundersökning för skyddande av brottsling 11/12:141 -iakttagelser vid en inspektion hos , Riksenheten för polismål () och i , internutredningssektio- nen 11/12:166 - ingripande mot en anställds yttrandefrihet 10/11:605 -tillämpningen av bestämmelsen i 23 kap. 4 a § om förun- dersökningsbegränsning 10/11:103 -en åklagares åtgärd att återkalla sitt överklagande när nya uppgifter kunde tyda på att utmätt straff var alltför strängt 11/12:135 -kritik mot en av ett ärende om god man m.m. 09/10:420 -kritik mot en överförmyndare och en tingsrätt för brister i utredningen av en blivande god mans lämplighet m.m. 09/10:426 -initiativärende om en överförmyndarnämnds handläggning av ett förvaltar- ärende. Uttalanden om behov av s.k. förvaltarenheter 09/10:431 -kritik mot en överförmyndare för bristfällig hantering av frågor om utläm- nande av handlingar m.m. 10/11:531 -handläggningen av ett ärende om godmanskap m.m. 10/11:535 -kritik mot en i handläggning av ett ärende om entledigande av god man m.m. 10/11:540 -uttalanden om anhörigas rätt att i ett godmansärende ta del av handlingar som rör ställföreträdarskapet m.m. 11/12:539 2 011 /1 2:JO1 B I L A G A 9 -handläggningen av ett ärende om insats i form av ekonomiskt stöd enligt 9 § 2 LSS; fråga bl.a. om nämnden har kunnat avvisa ett överklagande där- för att nämnden ansett att den som klagade på ett beslut inte var behörig 10/11:417 -verkställande av kommunala beslut som inte vunnit laga kraft 10/11:563, 568, 574 -en myndighets skyldighet att ompröva ett beslut som överklagas 10/11:291 -svartlistning av offentliga biträden i utlänningsärenden 10/11:308 -tjänstetillsättningsärende; en myndighets skyldighet att rätta sig efter ett beslut i en överinstans 10/11:275 -en myndighets skyldighet att rätta sig efter ett beslut i en överinstans m.m. 10/11:525 -företrädare för en myndighet har sökt påverka en part att återta ett överkla- gande 10/11:558 -publicering på Lantmäteriets webbplats har inte ansetts uppfylla kravet på underrättelse enligt 4 kap. 33 a § fastighetsbildningslagen 10/11:501 -en åklagares åtgärd att återkalla sitt överklagande när nya uppgifter kunde tyda på att utmätt straff var alltför strängt 11/12:135 -fråga om polisen bort verkställa en dom om att avliva en hund, då hund- ägarens ombud uppgett att hon hade för avsikt att överklaga domen och begära inhibition 11/12:161 -allvarlig allvarlig kritik mot , som inte rättat sig efter en dom i en överinstans 11/12:309 2 011 /1 2:JO1 The Swedish Parliamentary Ombudsmen Report for the period 1 2010 to 30 2011 1.General information and statistics resigned from his post as Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman on 2 January 2011 to take up the position of President of the Supreme Admin- istrative Court. The Riksdag appointed Ms. to be Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman from 3 January 2011. retired from her post as Parliamentary Ombudsman from 1 January 2011. The Riksdag has appointed Mr. to the post of Parliamentary Ombudsman from 1 2011. During the period covered by the report, the following have held office as Parliamentary Ombudsmen: Mr. (Chief Parliamentary Ombuds- man up until 2 January 2011), Ms. (up until ), Ms. (Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman from 3 January 2011, Mr. For a number of shorter periods the Deputy Ombudsmen Mr. Hans Ragnemalm have dealt with and adjudicated on super- visory cases. During the working year, 6,954 new cases were registered with the Om- budsmen; 6,816 of them were complaints (a reduction of 494 () com- pared to the number during the previous working year) and 36 were cases initiated by the Ombudsmen themselves on the basis of observations made during inspections, newspaper reports or on other grounds. 102 cases con- cerned new legislation, where the Parliamentary Ombudsmen were given the opportunity to express their opinion on government bills etc. 7,061 cases were concluded during the period, a reduction of 666 (); of which 6,911 involved complaints, 50 were cases initiated by the Ombudsmen themselves and 100 cases concerned new legislation. It should be noted that the schedules overleaf show cases concluded during the period, not all cases lodged. This summary also comprises the full reports of three of the cases dealt with by the Ombudsmen during the period, one summary of an initiative case and one lecture on access to official documents held by Mr. , 3 2011 in . 2 011 /1 2:JO1 B I L A G A 10 Schedule of cases initiated by the Ombudsmen and concluded during the period 1 201030 2011 ed by special regu- B I L A G A 10 20 11 /12 :JO1 Schedule of complaint cases concluded during the period 1 201030 2011 Labour market auth. ment, protection of tive boards, control of lotteries, serving sion; access to offi- *) In addition, there were a large number of complaint cases which were dismissed with reference to the initiative case no. 1708-2010 about the transfer of matters relating to driving licenses etc. to the . 2 011 /1 2:JO1 B I L A G A 10 Reports of four individual cases Criticism of the Swedish Armed Forces for serious shortcomings in the exercise of public authority Summary of the Parliamentary Ombudsmens criticism In this case the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman . found grounds for expressing particularly grave criticism of the Swedish Armed Forces on two points. One of them involved an unlawful search of an apart- ment occupied by Major , who was employed by the armed forces. The other concerned the way in which the Swedish Armed Forces dealt with a request from for access to four public documents. was a Major and commander of the Swedish Armed Forces Operative Measures Command (OPIL). Because of suspicion of an offence against his ex-wife, was arrested on 7 2005 in his office in . At the time of the arrest permanent was in Bällefors in and he also had an apartment in which he could stay overnight in . In view of the suspicions that had given rise to his arrest, the criminal investigation department of the authority in undertook a search of home in Bällefors and his apartment in . A number of military documents were found in Bällefors. Because of the contents of these documents the charges of which was suspected were extended to include negligent handling of classified information as well. On 14 2005 the security con- ducted a search of apartment in . documents were found there which were later to be included in the charge against of aggravated unlawful possession of classified information. On 14 2006 was sentenced to three months impris- onment by the Court of Appeal for the assault of his ex-wife. On 19 2006 the Supreme Court decided not to grant leave to appeal. Subsequently was prosecuted in for aggra- vated unlawful possession of classified information. The main hearing was held in Court 1928 2008. Court dismissed the charge in its judgment of 2 2008 (case no. B 4482-2007). This judgment gained the force of law. On decided to dismiss from his position in the Swedish Armed Forces. B I L A G A 10 20 11 /12 :JO1 In an extensive complaint submitted to the Parliamentary Ombudsmen on 27 2009, alleged that the Swedish Armed Forces had, in several respects, failed in the exercise of power in relation to his case. He listed his criticism of the Swedish Armed Forces under ten headings. The sections of the complaint that have been investigated in this case comprised, for instance, the following allegations. At the main hearing in Court in 2008 testimony was given by an employee of the Swedish Armed Forces who was given the code name MUA 100. He stated on oath that he had been inside apart- ment without consent, that this entry had been made without the knowledge of the prosecutor and without the support of a search warrant, that he had removed some of belongings and that no list had been made of what he had removed. MUA 100 was unable to state at what time he had entered the apartment as no records had been kept. also alleged that he knew that his apartment had been bugged for a few weeks before his arrest. He also has strong indications that his telephones were tapped during a long period even after his release and that his e-mails and post were being read. Until otherwise shown, he assumes that the bugging and surveillance etc. is being undertaken by the Swedish Armed Forces. He wonders whether the Swedish Armed Forces have the necessary authorisations for these measures. During the main hearing in the City Court in 2008, submitted a handwritten request for copies of certain documents he con- sidered that he needed to defend himself against the charge. During one of the breaks he handed his request to MUA 100, who in his turn submitted it to the head of the intelligence section (MUST), . The latter refused, however, to deal with written request. When was informed of his obligation as a public official to treat a request for docu- ments in compliance with the principle of public access to official documents he responded that the principle of public access does not apply to you. needed the documents within the course of one or two days as the hearing was already being held. Not until he wrote a reminder on 3 February 2009 did he receive acknowledgement on 18 February 2009 that his request had been received but not yet dealt with. On 27 February 2009 he received one of the requested documents with an apologetic letter which asked him to excuse the delay and explained that more documents were to follow. documents arrived a few weeks later but not, however, those he had re- quested. He has still not received the rest. He alleges that the Swedish Armed Forces deliberately delayed and denied him the material he had requested in evident conflict with the principle of public access to official documents in order to deprive him of the possibility of offering a reasonable defence during the trial. After completing a comprehensive enquiry, the Chief Parliamentary Om- budsman included the following observations in her adju- dication of the case on 3 2011. 2 011 /1 2:JO1 B I L A G A 10 The search of apartment Article 6 of Chapter 2 of the Instrument of Government lays down that every citizen is to be protected in their relations with the public institutions against house searches, for instance. The term house search is to be understood, ac- cording to the travaux préliminaires of the constitutional legislation, to mean any search of a , room or enclosed storage space made by a public authority. The protection stipulated here against house searches is not, how- ever, absolute. Article 12 of Chapter 2 of the Instrument of Government states that this protection may be limited in law.15 This has taken place through the regulations in Chapter 28 of the Procedural Code. The first paragraph of Sec- tion 1 of Chapter 28 of the Procedural Code stipulates that searches may be made of the premises of those who are reasonably suspected of a crime pun- ishable by imprisonment to look for objects that are subject to seizure or to investigate circumstances that may be of significance for the investigation of the crime. It is worth pointing out here that, according to the third paragraph of the same section, the consent of the suspect is not enough to justify the search unless the measure has been requested personally. A decision on a search of premises pursuant to the provision referred to here is issued according to the main regulation in Section 4 of Chapter 28 of the Procedural Code by the leader of the investigation, the prosecutor or the court. The Swedish Armed Forces do not have the power to decide on the search of premises according to these regulations. The response submitted by the Swedish Armed Forces on 25 February 2010 states among other things that adjutant had her own keys to his apartment and that she gave MUST permission to search it. In addition, it is stated that the two officers who conducted the search were to enter the apartment to look for operational military documents and a crypto- phone that had been issued to . In his written submission to the Parliamentary Ombudsmen in 2010, MUA 100 stated that he gave two officers the task of asking adjutant, who had access to the apartment, whether her mandate from would allow her to ad- mit them to the apartment to collect military equipment/information that had been left there. According to MUA 100, he gave explicit instructions that it was to be the adjutant who decided whether a visit could be made to the apartment. The response of the Swedish Armed Forces of 3 2010 claims that MUA 100 later stated that the decision to remove the property from the apartment had probably been made by him after consultation with the adju- tant. It has been claimed by the Swedish Armed Forces that in the prevailing circumstances it was important to ensure recovery of any military documents 15 From 1 January 2011 this regulation can be found in Article 20 of Chapter 2 of the In- strument of Government. B I L A G A 10 20 11 /12 :JO1 and the cryptophone. However matters stood in this respect, apartment was his private dwelling while it was at his disposal. had not himself given his consent to the recovery by the Swedish Armed Forces of military property from the apartment and had by no means re- quested its removal. Nothing has come to light in this case that in itself gives reason to question the information that the adjutant let the two officers into the apartment without being ordered to do so. As stated by the Swedish Armed Forces, however, the fact that the adjutant had access to the keys can- not be considered to mean that the apartment was at her disposal in the sense that she was able to consent to an examination of what it contained. There are also grounds for pointing out that to view the cooperation of the adjutant as voluntary in the situation could well have been self-delusion. In my opinion, the search of apartment made by the Swedish Armed Forces can undoubtedly be considered a house search in the sense used in the Instrument of Government. No decision authorising it had been issued. Irrespective of the reasons for undertaking the search, there was no statutory justification for it. The alleged consent of the adjutant does not mean that the measure was permissible. I share the opinion of the Swedish Armed Forces that the apartment should not have been searched in the way it was. should property of any kind have been removed from it. When, nevertheless, this did occur, a record should have been made of the property removed. I am highly critical of what happened. has claimed that the supreme command of the Swedish Armed Forces had been briefed and made the decision to search his apart- ment. This has however been refuted by the Swedish Armed Forces. It is word against word. I can see no grounds for enquiring into this matter any further. The authority has also rejected the statement by MUA 100 that he briefed the head of the security section about his intention to recover Swedish Armed Forces property from the apartment and that the latter had no objection to MUA 100s proposal. I do not consider that any further enquiry into this mat- ter would be useful. Initially, with regard to the request made by in a letter to the Swedish Armed Forces Chief Legal Officer on 16 2010, the response of the Swedish Armed Forces was that the documents requested were sent to on 23 and 24 2010. To explain why had not received these documents it is pointed out that they were sent to a postal address that although incorrect was the one that had supplied. What occurred with respect to these documents does not provide sufficient grounds for criticism. Secondly, when it comes to the treatment by the Swedish Armed Forces of the request for documents submitted by in connection with the main hearing in the City Court on 1928 2008, three accounts have been presented by the Swedish Armed Forces to the Parliamentary Ombudsmen 2 011 /1 2:JO1 B I L A G A 10 which do not completely agree with each other, a fact that in itself is apt to arouse surprise. It is stated by the Swedish Armed Forces that the routines accounted for by the authority in its response broke down in an unacceptable when the request for the provision of documents in 2008 was being dealt with and also during the subsequent search that is said to have taken place in 2009. I for my part would like to go further than that and assert that the way in which this was dealt with by the Swedish Armed Forces was completely unacceptable. In my opinion the Swedish Armed Forces have not been able to provide any clear explanation of the measures adopted initially as a result of request for the provision of public documents. Furthermore, the claims of the Swedish Armed Forces that the documents were difficult to identify and that had supplied no contact details seem almost to be excuses, not least in view of the fact that subsequently the documents turned out not to be particularly difficult to identify and that until only a few weeks before the request had been employed by the Swedish Armed Forces. In addition, a trial was taking place in Court in which representatives of the Swedish Armed Forces testified or, as far as can be seen, were attending as members of the public. In view of this, the Swedish Armed Forces should reasonably have been able to understand that the docu- ments could, at least in opinion, be important for his defence and that his request should, for this reason, have been given the highest pri- ority. request was not registered until February 2009 and there is a great deal to suggest that this is when it began to be dealt with seri- ously. Even then, as admitted by the Swedish Armed Forces, objections could be raised to the way in which it was processed. To sum up, I am highly criti- cal of what took place. I do not find grounds for commenting on the statement that the head of the intelligence section, , is alleged to have made, according to both and MUA 100, in connection with request for documents. The head of the intelligence section has denied making a state- ment of this kind. Here again it is word against word. Investigation of the matter would require extensive endeavours, which I do not consider neces- sary. B I L A G A 10 20 11 /12 :JO1 criticism of the County Authority for refusing entry clearance to foreigners on the grounds that they were vagrants and spent their time begging (Decision of the Parliamentary Ombudsman . Axberger, reg. Summary of the adjudication The County Authority refused entry clearance to to 26 from with the justification that they were spending their time as vagrants/beggars. According to the regulation invoked, foreigners may be refused entry clearance if it can be assumed that during their stay in they will not be able to support themselves by honest means.