No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Swedish Institution of Justice Ombudsman
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 February 2019
Extract
I. The Institution of Justice Ombudsman has its origian in Sweden. The term “ombudsman” in Swedish means a representative or an agent. In practice the Justice Ombudsman has come to be described as the protector of people's rights and the watchman over central and local administrations and courts. He is the commissioner of justice, elected by the Parliament to ensure that the laws of the country are properly observed by the State and local authorities.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 1990 by The Institute for International Legal Information
References
1. Bexelius, A., Vår Förste JO, Stockholm (1981), p. 13.Google Scholar
2. The 1809 Constitution did not require that the JO should be a jurist. Ability to understand and appreciate the concept of law was deemed to be adequate. Even today the Constitution does not require the JO to be a lawyer. However, except for the first JO, Lars August Mannerheim, who was the Chairman of the Committee on the Constitution in 1809, the Justice Ombudsmen throughout the two centuries have been successfully selected from among lawyers.Google Scholar
3. Note that the Office of Chancellor of Justice with somewhat limited functions still exists in Sweden.Google Scholar
4. See Note 1, at 14–18. Note that under a short period of time in the middle of the 18th century, the parliament seized the opportunity to appoint the Chancellor of Justice.Google Scholar
5. See Note 1, at 16–18.Google Scholar
6. Id. at 22.Google Scholar
7. Statens Offentliga Utredningar (SOU 1939: 7), p. 25 ff.Google Scholar
8. SOU 1965: 64, pp. 39–41.Google Scholar
9. Note that in Sweden some members of the elected councils perform active administrative duties in various boards and committees of the local government. In that capacity the elected members of the councils are subject to JO's supervision.Google Scholar
10. Lundvik, U., et al., The Swedish Parliamentary Ombudsman, Stockholm (1974), p. 3.Google Scholar
11. SOU 1965: 64, pp. 60–63.Google Scholar
12. SOU 1975: 23. Note that during the first hundred years, the JO received a total of 7000 complaints. This number had risen to over 3000 a year by 1972.Google Scholar
13. SOU 1975: 23, pp. 230–232.Google Scholar
14. See Note 3.Google Scholar
15. Svensk Författningssamling (SFS 1975: 1056).Google Scholar
16. al-Wahab, I., The Swedish Institution of Ombudsman, Stockholm (1979), pp. 46–67.Google Scholar
17. SFS 1986: 764, Chapter 8: 10.Google Scholar
18. Act of Instructions for the Parliamentary Ombudsmen, SFS 1986: 765, Section 15.Google Scholar
19. SFS 1974: 152. The present Swedish Constitution, which replaced the 1809 Constitution, entered into force on January 1, 1975.Google Scholar
20. SFS 1974: 153. See also Note 17.Google Scholar
21. See infra on Annual Reports.Google Scholar
22. Infra, p. 6.Google Scholar
23. Supra, p. 4.Google Scholar
24. The rules on public responsibility in connection with the exercise of authority are stipulated in the Swedish Penal Code, Chapter 20, on Abuse of Public Authority.Google Scholar
25. See Note 18, Section 2 (as amended by SFS 1987: 995).Google Scholar
26. Id., Section 8.Google Scholar
27. Id., Section 2.Google Scholar
28. See Note 19.Google Scholar
29. See Note 18, Section 10.Google Scholar
30. See Note 19, Chapter 12: 3.Google Scholar
31. Act of Parliament, Chapter 9: 8, SFS 1974: 153.Google Scholar
32. See Note 18, Section 4.Google Scholar
33. See Note 19.Google Scholar
34. See Infra concerning the JO's investigations and inspections.Google Scholar
35. See Note 18, Section 5.Google Scholar
36. Id., Section 20. This is for the reason of preventing the unnecessary increase of the JO's work-load.Google Scholar
37. Id., Section 21.Google Scholar
38. SOU 1965: 64, p. 94; SOU 1975: 23, pp. 87–89; and Justitie-ombudsmännens Ämbetsberättelse 1987–88, pp. 10–12.Google Scholar
39. SOU 1975: 23, pp. 99–101 and 277.Google Scholar
40. See Note 10, pp. 5–9.Google Scholar
41. See Note 18, Section 17.Google Scholar
42. See Note 18, Section 18.Google Scholar
43. Id.Google Scholar
44. Id., Section 19. In order to provide the JO with the opportunity to concentrate on the most essential cases, the law permits an Ombudsman to dismiss a complaint if he finds it to be of minor importance or is unfounded. Grounds for reaching such a conclusion would be a reasonable assumption that no error has been made by the respective authority.Google Scholar
45. Id., Section 23.Google Scholar
46. Id., Section 21.Google Scholar
47. SOU 1975: 23, pp. 70–73 and 93–95.Google Scholar
48. See Note 10, pp. 4–9.Google Scholar
49. Id. at 9.Google Scholar
50. This is the case that brought about the concept which is known as “Stockholm syndrome.”Google Scholar
51. See Note 10, p. 12 ff.Google Scholar
52. Justitieombudsmännens Ämbetsberättelse, 1976–77, pp. 471–472. See also Note 16, pp. 127–128. It should be noted that in principle an authority follows the JO's opinion expressed in a statement such as above.Google Scholar
52. SOU 1975: 23, p. 111ff.Google Scholar
54. Supra, p. 3.Google Scholar
55. See Note 10 at 10–11.Google Scholar
56. Id.Google Scholar
57. Justitieombudsmännens Ämbetsberättelse, 1987–88, pp. 134–136.Google Scholar
58. See Note 18, Section 6, Parag. 1.-Google Scholar
59. See Note 10, p. 8.Google Scholar
60. See Note 18, Section 6, Parag. 2.Google Scholar
61. Id., Section 22.Google Scholar
62. SOU 1975: 23, pp. 79–81.Google Scholar
63. See Note 18, Section 6, Parag. 2.Google Scholar
64. Id., Section 6, Parag. 3.Google Scholar
65. Id., Section 6, Parag. 4.Google Scholar
66. Id., Section 7.Google Scholar
67. See Note 18, Section 4.Google Scholar
68. See Note 10, p. 5.Google Scholar
69. See Supra, p. 4.Google Scholar
70. See Supra, p. 5.Google Scholar
71. See Note 18, Section 14 and 15.Google Scholar
72. Id. Section 13.Google Scholar
73. Id., Section 11.Google Scholar
74. Supra, p. 5.Google Scholar
75. See Note 16, Section 25.Google Scholar
76. Justitieombudsmännens Ämbetsberättelse, 1987–88, p. 331. Note that some of these cases may require several years of investigation.Google Scholar
77. Justitieombudsmännens Ämbetsberättelse, 1987–88, pp. 263–64.Google Scholar
78. Id., p. 341.Google Scholar