frsrdg · H204JO1 · 2014-11-11 00:00:00 — sions on sick benefit by neglecting to account for the opinions and documents submitted to the agency by insured individuals. has it been clear from the decisions how the agency has assessed this information. In addition, in one de- cision the has confused information describing the case with what are circumstances that are decisive for it. Agency is criticised for these shortcomings. Environmental protection, public health as well as animal welfare Criticism of a county administrative board for a delay in informing parties of a decision to take animals into care pursuant to Section 34 of the Animal Protection Act (427-2013) The county administrative board decided that a number of cats were to be taken into care. The owner of the cats was informed of this decision through notifi- cation provided in connection with its enforcement three weeks later. In its re- sponse to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the county administrative board states that there was a risk that the owner of the cats would conceal them if informed of the decision before the had time to enforce it. The Parlia- mentary Ombudsman points out that there is no possibility of waiting to inform one party of a decision of this kind. The county administrative board should have ensured that the owner of the cats was informed of this decision without delay and is criticised for not having done so. Criticism of a county administrative board for not reporting an offence against the Animal Protection Act to the prosecution agency or the In its capacity as supervisory authority pursuant to the Animal Protection Act (1988:534), the county administrative board found out about a riding school that was operating without a permit. It is an offence against the Animal Protec- tion Act to run a riding school without a permit and the county administrative T H E S W E D I S H P A R L I A M E N T A R Y O M B U D S M E N B I L A G A 1 0 2 014 /1 5:JO1 board is criticised for not having discharged its obligation to notify the prose- cution agency or the of this offence. criticism of a county governor for having given grounds for decisions in shore protection cases in a way that was in conflict with both the regulations applying to the grounds for decisions in the Administrative Procedures Act and the objectivity required by Section 9 of Article 1 of the Instrument of Government (4427-2011) A county governor gave grounds for decisions to waive the right to access in a way likely to give the impression that the decisions were in direct conflict with the regulations in the Environmental Code. The wordings of these decisions have been in breach of both the regulations on the grounds on which decisions may be based in the Administrative Procedures Act and the objecti- vity required by the Instrument of Government. criticism is expressed of the country governor. criticism of a county administrative board for neglecting its obligations pursuant to the Service of Documents Act (776-2013) The county administrative board was required to serve 13 members of a community with an imposition of a conditional fine. After it had been notified of failure to serve two of the members, the county administrative board took no further measures to serve notice to them. The county administrative board has explained its passivity to the Parliamentary Ombudsman by saying that taking action against certain members of the community would not have improved the possibility of reaching some kind of settlement. The Parliamentary Ombuds- man’s adjudication states that this is a very poor explanation. As the county administrative board had chosen to serve notice of the fines, it was also required to ensure that all 13 members of the community received this notice. criticism is expressed of the county administrative board. Criticism of a county administrative board for failure to communicate information that was important in a decision to put a dog down and for its delay in notifying the owner of the decision (1735-2013, 6458-2013) The county administrative board had taken a dog into care pursuant to the Ani- mal Protection Act and decided that it was to be sold or found a new owner in some other way. Subsequently the county administrative board was informed by the authority that it was impossible to sell the dog or find a new owner and that it was referring the case back to the county administrative board for a decision to put it down. The county administrative board decided that the dog was to be put down without giving the owner of the dog the information from the , for which it is criticised. The county administrative board employed a bailiff to notify the owner of the decision to put the dog down and the result was that this information was not received until 19 days after the decision had been made and 15 days after the dog had been put down. The county adminis- trative board is criticised for not informing the owner earlier. Finally, criticism is expressed of the county administrative board for shortcomings with regard to its obligation to register public documents. 2 014 /1 5:JO1 B I L A G A 10 T H E S W E D I S H P A R L I A M E N T A R Y O M B U D S M E N criticism of a local to submit two appeals, one containing a request for inhibition, to the county administrative board (2571-2012) ordered a property owner under penalty of fine to remove a signboard and ruled that the decision was to take immediate effect even if ap- pealed against. The property owner appealed against the decision and requested its inhibition. did not establish whether the appeal had been submitted within the prescribed period and did not forward it to the superior instance. did it forward the additional documents later submitted by the property owner. Instead the committee wrote to the property owner to say that the case was closed and could no longer be dealt with. The property owner also appealed against this ruling. Here, as well, the committee failed to establish whether the appeal had been submitted within the prescribed period and did not forward it to the superior instance either. The Parliamentary Ombudsman’s adjudication points out that there are se- rious gaps in the committee’s knowledge of the fundamental regulations on how to manage appeals. criticism is expressed of the committee. criticism of two officials in a planning and being objective and impartial in their treatment of an application for a permit (746-2013) A co-operative housing association was involved in a court dispute with four of its members concerning balconies. During the proceedings the society ap- plied to the planning and permits for balconies. The society’s aim was for the committee to reject the application so that it would later be able to submit this decision as evidence in the court hearing. criticism is expressed of two of the ’s officials for dealing with an application for a permit and contacts with the appli- cants in a way that failed to comply with the objectivity and impartiality re- quired by the Instrument of Government. criticism of the National Land Survey for its delay in the management of a case concerning conveyancing (1222-2013) In a property matter all that remained for the National Land Survey to do on was determine the compensation. The agency did not begin to deal with this question until 2013 and grave criticism is expressed of this delay. criticism of a principal for failure to notify a social welfare board immediately after hearing a pupil talk about violence in the home (6755- 2012) Act lays down that certain authorities, such as schools, as well as their staff, are required to notify a social welfare board immediately if T H E S W E D I S H P A R L I A M E N T A R Y O M B U D S M E N B I L A G A 1 0 2 014 /1 5:JO1 in the course of their activities they become aware or suspect that children are being treated badly. In October 2010 a girl told a teacher that she was subjected to violence at home. In October 2011 and 2012 she again told members of the school staff of assault in her home. On each occasion this information was given to the principal. Not until was the social welfare board notified. The statement submitted by the school says that instead of notifying the social ser- vices there were “several internal assessments and discussions” about the girl’s information. The adjudication states that it is not up to the school to evaluate the infor- mation that has been received but that this is a question for the social services and possibly the , prosecution agency and a court of law. The social wel- fare board should have been notified immediately after the girl had said she was exposed to violence in her home for the first time. criticism is ex- pressed of the principal for failure to provide the required notification. Criticism of a teacher in a secondary apps on a pupil’s mobile phone (2785-2013) A parent submitted a complaint about a teacher who had “taken a look” at his daughter’s mobile phone which she had taken with her to a class. In the adjudication the Parliamentary Ombudsman says that the teacher would have been entitled to impound the mobile phone by virtue of Section 22 of Chapter 5 of the Education Act if he considered that the pupil was using the phone in a way that disturbed school activities. On the other hand there are no grounds in law to enable school staff to examine/check a pupil’s mobile phone. The teacher should not, therefore have made an inspection of the contents of the phone and cannot escape criticism for his actions. Criticism of a school nurse for conversations with a pupil about her situation at home without the consent of her custodian (1382-2012) On her own initiative a school nurse had a number of conversations with a pupil about her situation at home without first gaining the consent of her custodian. Her custodian was not subsequently informed of what had transpired during these conversations either. The Parliamentary Ombudsman’s adjudication points out that as the pupil was so young these conversations could only have taken place if the custodian had consented to them. As the custodian had not been asked what he felt about them, there was no scope for the school nurse to undertake them. In addition it would have been possible for the school nurse to avoid telling the custodian, in this case the pupil’s father, about what had transpired during these conversa- tions if there had been grounds for believing that the pupil would sustain con- siderable harm if the information was provided. The enquiry gave no support for considering that such circumstances prevailed in this case. The Parliamen- tary Ombudsman sums up the adjudication by stating that it was wrong of the school nurse to have these conversations with the pupil without the custodian’s consent and not subsequently providing information about what had been said. 2 014 /1 5:JO1 B I L A G A 10 T H E S W E D I S H P A R L I A M E N T A R Y O M B U D S M E N Criticism of the chairperson of an educational single- handedly to prohibit listeners from making sound or video recordings during a meeting of the committee that was open to the public (6356-2012 and 6488- 2012) At a meeting that was open to the public the chairperson of in the municipality of (which is a municipal board) decided on a procedural rule to the effect that listeners were not allowed to make sound or video recordings during part of the meeting. The Parliamentary Ombudsman states that in principle a municipal board is permitted to decide on procedural rules that mean that listeners at a public meet- ing are not allowed to make sound or video recordings. This rule may not, how- ever, be arbitrary, discriminatory or prompted by any other irrelevant reason. The enquiry gives the Parliamentary Ombudsman no grounds for maintaining that there was no acceptable reason for the procedural rule in this particular case. According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, however, it is the board that must decide on a procedural rule of this kind. The chairperson is therefore criti- cised for making the decision about the rule on his own. Criticism of the chairperson of an educational convening a meeting when requested to do so by one-third of the committee’s members One-third of the members of the Children and in the mu- nicipality of asked for an extraordinary meeting to be held. Accord- ing to the Parliamentary Ombudsman the chairperson should have called the meeting even though in her judgement the committee was unable to make a decision on the issue the minority wanted to raise. The chairperson of the com- mittee is criticised for not convening the meeting. Committees of chief guardians and chief guardians criticism of in Region for the management of a number of applications for the appointment of guardians or trustees (3437-2013) In 2010 the Parliamentary Ombudsman criticised in the municipality of for not immedi- ately submitting an application for the termination of a guardianship to the dis- trict court, the instance that has to make a decision in such cases. In her adju- dication in 2010 she wrote that she took it for granted that the committee would take measures to ensure correct treatment of similar cases in the future. How- ever, during an inspection of the district court in in 2013 the Par- liamentary Ombudsman noted four cases in which the committee had similarly neglected to send applications for the appointment of guardians to the district court straight away. In its response to the Parliamentary Ombuds- man the committee refers to the introduction of new routines to enable rapid and legally correct procedures. In his adjudication the Parliamentary Ombuds- man concludes that the committee merits grave criticism for its protracted and inadequate treatment of the four cases and, referring to the adjudication from T H E S W E D I S H P A R L I A M E N T A R Y O M B U D S M E N B I L A G A 1 0 2 014 /1 5:JO1 2010, points out that it is surprising that the committee had not introduced the routines it referred to earlier. Public access to documents and secrecy as well as freedom of expression and of the press Social services, health and services criticism of a social services official for disclosure of certain information in a case concerning a contact family (4172-2012) A woman had an identity protection order because the father of one of her chil- dren had threatened her. The Parliamentary Ombudsman expressed grave criti- cism of an official in the social services for disclosing her place of work to the father, also a custodian, when reporting the outcome of an enquiry about a con- tact family. An 18-year-old girl had been issued with an identity protection order concerning her personal details and her subsequent change of name. Criticism of a municipal of the girl’s name to her mother by including it in the calculations of income support sent to her An 18-year-old girl placed in a home through a decision by the board of social welfare in the municipality of was granted an identity pro- tection order concerning her personal details and subsequent change of name. This order meant that her personal details were protected. The girl’s mother received income support from one of the municipality’s other administrative units, its development committee. On two occasions this unit sent the mother calculations about the amount of income support in which the girl’s new name appeared. All agencies that request information from the civic register are informed if any details are protected. The unit dealing with the income support used another administrative system which did not indicate clearly if any individual’s per- sonal details were confidential. In the adjudication the Parliamentary Ombuds- man states that it is very serious for a public authority that deals with a great many protected identities in its daily routines not to have an administrative sys- tem that offers security in this respect. Disclosure of the information about the girl’s name must be attributed to the system’s shortcomings. The development committee deserves to be criticised for this. Criticism of a social services official for supplying a 19-year-old woman’s telephone number to her mother (846-2012) In the social services information about the personal circumstances of individ- uals are subject to secrecy unless it is obvious that some detail can be disclosed without harming any individuals or those close to them. It is the subjective feelings of the individual on which any assessment of the possibility of causing them harm or not must be based. 2 014 /1 5:JO1 B I L A G A 10 T H E S W E D I S H P A R L I A M E N T A R Y O M B U D S M E N An analyst in the social services office in the municipality of supplied a 19-year-old woman’s new telephone number to her mother as the analyst considered this was best for her in view of the grave concern about her health and well-being. In the light of the analyst’s awareness of the relationship between the woman and her mother it cannot be considered obvious that dis- closure of the telephone number would not harm her. Even though the analyst acted in the way she considered best for the woman, she cannot escape criticism for her action. Criticism of a board of social welfare for the erasure of a video recording made during the course of an enquiry concerning custody, living arrangements and visitation rights (3483-2011) The Employment and had been requested by a district court to undertake a custody enquiry etc. In the course of the enquiry the board made what is called an “interaction assessment”, during which the children and par- ents were observed and a video film made. The results of the interaction as- sessment were to form part of the report from the custody enquiry. recording was erased at the end of the interaction assessment but before the custody report had been completed. The Freedom of the Press Act and other regulations about the management of documents also apply to video recordings made within a public authority. claimed that the video recording was working material, i.e. was another form of memorandum, but in the view of the Parliamentary Om- budsman the recorded material, or parts of it, contained information that had been included in the custody enquiry. This meant that it was the kind of docu- ment that would have been in the public domain when the case had finally been dealt with by the Board. The Freedom of the Press Act does not stipulate any requirement to preserve material that contains objective information until a case has been decided. Destroying material of this kind before a decision has been made is not, however, compatible with the fundamental principles that apply in this area. The Parliamentary Ombudsman considers that it was wrong of the authority to decide in advance that the video recording, which did not yet exist, was to be erased when the interaction assessment had been completed. material removed any possibility of correct application of the provisions on the preservation of official documents. Moreover, the parties in the custody case were entitled to access documents of this kind that were not yet in the public domain at any time during the litigation. The Parliamentary Ombudsman there- fore considers that the authority acted wrongly in destroying the material. criticism of a forensic psychiatric clinic for its treatment of a request for the provision of copies of records; a question, for instance, about the withdrawal by the clinic of records that had been provided After an inspection of the regional forensic psychiatric clinic in the Parliamentary Ombudsman decided to investigate the way in which the clinic had dealt with a case concerning the provision of copies of records to T H E S W E D I S H P A R L I A M E N T A R Y O M B U D S M E N B I L A G A 1 0 2 014 /1 5:JO1 The patient had requested copies of his records and some of them were supplied to him. The clinic then decided to recall the copies it had provided. In the adjudication it is pointed out that a patient’s records are sub- ject to secrecy and this secrecy may even in some cases apply for the patient concerned. An authority that mistakenly supplies a document subject to secrecy can ask for it back, but it cannot decide that it must be returned. The clinic’s treatment of the request had fallen short in this and a number of other respects and it therefore merited grave criticism. Criticism of the Agency for Youth and for a case concerning the provision of public documents that had been assessed on the basis of the regulations on providing information from a public document (1061-2013) () applied in 2012 for a grant from the for Youth and . A number of in- dividuals sent e-mails requesting provision of the documents submitted by the SDYO to the agency in connection with this application. The names of these individuals were listed in the agency’s register. One of them (who complained to the Parliamentary Ombudsmen) then requested the agency to provide a “di- ary of those (e-mail and name if possible)” it had provided with a specific doc- ument relating to the application. The agency decided with reference to secrecy to reject certain parts of the complainant’s request and supplied a document in which names had been removed. It is clear from the decision by the Agency that its board assessed this issue on the basis of the regulations on providing information from a public document. Decisions of this kind cannot be appealed against. The Parliamentary Ombudsman points out that the complainant had re- quested a compilation of information in the agency’s register, what is known as a “potential document”. Documents of this kind are covered by the principle of public access and the agency should have reviewed the request on the basis of the regulations on the provision of public documents. An appeal may be made against a refusal on these grounds. As the complainant was not given the opportunity to appeal against the agency’s decision not to provide the documents, the Parliamentary Ombuds- man, who normally refrains from expressing opinions on the assessments made by authorities in individual cases, states that the grounds cited by the agency in its response to the Parliamentary Ombudsman cannot be invoked to refuse to provide a document with information about names. The complainant should therefore have been provided with the document in its entirety. Criticism is expressed of the for Youth and for its manage- ment of this case. 2 014 /1 5:JO1 B I L A G A 10 T H E S W E D I S H P A R L I A M E N T A R Y O M B U D S M E N Criticism of a municipal association, Västmanlandsmusiken, for signing away the right to insight into an appointment procedure (3529-2012) When the municipal association was appointing a director it turned to a private recruitment company. A journalist who approached the association to find out about expressions of interest that had been received by the company had his request refused on the grounds that the documents were not in the of, received by or drawn up by the association. When an appeal was made against this decision, the Administrative Court of Appeal found that the recruitment company should be considered to have received expressions of interest on behalf of the municipal association and they were to be viewed as public documents. The court of appeal referred the case back to the municipal association to be dealt with appropriately. Just over three weeks after the association had been notified of this decision, the journalist’s request was again rejected, now on the ground that the associa- tion – according to its contract with the recruitment company – did not have access to the documents requested.