Annual report 2014/15 SUMMARY IN ENGLISH Contents Observations made by the Ombudsmen ........................................................ 2 Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman Elisabet Fura ................................................ 2 Parliamentary Ombudsman Lilian Wiklund ...................................................... 8 Parliamentary Ombudsman Lars Lindström ....................................................14 Parliamentary Ombudsman Cecilia Renfors ....................................................20 OPCAT activities ........................................................................................... 28 International cooperation ............................................................................. 31 Summaries of individual cases ...................................................................... 33 Public courts ..........................................................................................................33 Police, prosecutors and customs .........................................................................35 Prison and probation services .............................................................................37 The armed forces ...................................................................................................42 Administrative courts ...........................................................................................43 Central government agencies ..............................................................................43 Migration ...............................................................................................................44 Social services ........................................................................................................46 Health and medical care .......................................................................................52 Social insurance .....................................................................................................53 Environment, public health and animal protection .........................................55 Planning and building ..........................................................................................55 Education and research ........................................................................................56 Committees of chief guardians and chief guardians ........................................57 Public access to documents and secrecy as well as freedom of expression ...57 Statistics ......................................................................................................... 61 1 Observations made by the ombudsmen during the year Elisabet Fura Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman My supervisory area comprises the Swedish Prison and Probation Service, the Swedish Social Insurance Agency and the Swedish Pensions Agency, the Armed Forces and a number of other authorities including the National Board for Consumer Disputes, the Equality Ombudsman and the Swedish Competi- tion Authority. As of 1 February 2015, my supervisory area also includes cases regarding the application of the Act concerning Support and Service for Persons with Certain Functional Impairments (LSS). The OPCAT unit belongs to my area in an organisational respect, but the unit’s inspections are carried out on the instructions of the Ombudsman supervising the authority to be inspected. A more detailed account of the OPCAT unit’s activities is found later in this publication. During the fiscal year, 1,548 complaints cases were received, which is a slight increase (33 cases or 2 per cent) compared to the previous year. 1,488 cases were concluded during the year. 641 (43 per cent) of these complaints were settled by delegated heads of division. Over the year, I have myself conducted six inspec- tions. Three inspections have been conducted on my behalf by a head of divi- sion. Three visits to authorities have been carried out, of which one by a head of division on my behalf. The OPCAT unit has conducted eight inspections within my supervisory area. Due to observations made during inspections by the OPCAT unit, I initiated three enquiries, one of which was not completed by the end of the fiscal year. The Swedish Prison and Probation Service During the fiscal year, a slightly greater number of complaints relating to the Prison and Probation Service has been received than the previous year. I will refrain from speculation as to what this might be due to. The burden on the country’s penal institutions has continued to decrease, but this has obviously not caused a continued decrease in the number of complaints. When it comes to 2 Observations made by the ombudsmen during the year Areas of responsibility • The Armed Forces and other cases rela- cases pertaining to agencies subordinate ting to the Ministry of Defence and its to the Ministry of Industry, Employment subordinate agencies which do not fall and Communications which do not fall within other areas of responsibility within other areas of responsibility. • The National Fortifications Agency. • The Agency for Public Management; the • Prisons and probation services, the National Financial Management Authori- National Prison and Probation Board and ty; the Legal, Financial and Administrati- probation boards. ve Services Agency, the National Appeals Board, the National Claims Adjustment • National insurance (health insurance, Board; the National Agency for Govern- pension insurance, parental insurance ment Employers, the Arbitration Board and work injuries insurance, housing on Certain Social Security Issues; the allowances and other income-related National Property Board; the National benefits, child allowances, maintenance Government Employee Pensions Board, advances etc.); the Social Insurance the National Pensions and Group Life In- Inspectorate; the National Pensions surance Board; the Financial Supervisory Agency. Authority, the Accounting Standards • Application of the Act on the Provision Board; the National Institute of Economic of Support and Service for Certain Indivi- Research; Statistics Sweden; the National duals with Certain Functional Impair- Disciplinary Offense Board. ments (LSS). • The Equality Ombudsman; the Board • Public procurement, consumer protec- against Discrimination. tion, marketing, price and competition • Cases that do not fall within the ambit within industry and commerce, price of the Parliamentary Ombudsmen; regulation, cases concerning limited documents containing unspecified companies and partnerships, trade complaints. names, trade registers, patents, trade- marks, registered designs, and other settled Prison and Probation Service cases, the frequency of criticism of deci- sions remains at roughly the same level as in the previous year. Fourteen deci- sions have been deemed to be of such public interest that they are referred to in the annual report. I wish to particularly emphasise the following three decisions. The first decision (ref. no. 1277-2014) concerns the circumstances of a female inmate who had been placed in isolation. The inmate had been guilty of serious violent crime against another inmate and had therefore been placed in isolation at the Hinseberg institution for a long period. In the decisions regarding isola- tion, the institution had noted that the inmate needed to be placed in a section with special control. In its referral response, the Prison and Probation Service stated that the institution did not at the time in question have sections that would facilitate such internal differentiation. In my decision, I pointed out that inadequate resources or the lack of opportunity for internal differentiation are not acceptable reasons for keeping an inmate in isolation from other inmates, and I expressed serious criticism of the Prison and Probation Service. In this context, I would like to mention that one of the inspections conducted by the OPCAT unit on my instructions during the fiscal year concerned the Hinseberg institution. The second decision (ref. no. 1697-2014) concerns the Prison and Probation Service’s actions in conjunction with a young woman who was an inmate in cus- tody being separated from her infant through deprivation of liberty. In conjunc- 3 Observations made by the ombudsmen during the year tion with the woman being placed at Borås detention centre, she was separated from her six-week-old son, whom she was breast feeding. The woman applied for leave, and before the application was reviewed by the detention centre, per- sonnel from both the medical services and social services had contacted the de- tention centre and emphasised the importance of allowing the woman to be with her son. The reason given for this was the need for bonding between the child and mother. However, the detention centre rejected the application for leave. In its decision the detention centre, among other things, stated that since leave in accordance with the Act on Detention can only be granted for short periods, the purpose of the “bonding theory” could not be fulfilled. In my decision, I pointed out the inappropriateness of a detention centre making this type of assessment, as it is not part of the Prison and Probation Service’s remit to make such con- siderations. In my opinion, the detention centre’s assessment should have been limited to the matter of whether there were especially urgent grounds to approve the application and of whether there were security concerns that would stop the granting of leave. Considering such facts as the leave application concerned a mother’s