This guide is informational. Always verify how the rules apply to your specific case.
Summary: When Sweden’s Parliament debated the Parliamentary Ombudsmen’s 2025 official report on 15 June 2026, the unprecedented rise in cases dominated the discussion. JO registered 15,429 new cases, up from 11,703 in 2024: 3,726 more, or about 32 per cent. Complaints concerning the Police Authority rose faster, from 1,334 to 1,998—an increase of 664, or just under 50 per cent.
The figures show sharply increased pressure on Parliament’s extraordinary supervisory body. They do not show that the police, social services or another authority committed an equivalent number of errors. A JO complaint is an allegation that is registered and assessed. Most complaints are not investigated further, and only some investigated cases result in criticism.
Fact box: JO cases in 2025
- All newly registered cases: 15,429 (11,703 in 2024; about +32%).
- Police: 1,998 complaints (1,334 in 2024; just under +50%).
- Social services: 2,780 complaints.
- Migration/aliens cases: 1,299 complaints.
- Education: 777 complaints.
Source and limitation: JO’s official report and Parliament’s consideration of it. These are registered complaints in JO’s subject categories, not judgments, criminal reports or established violations. They cannot be used as authority rankings without further analysis.
Public oversight in figures
JO cases 2021–2025
The chart shows registered cases in four Ombudsman areas. These are complaint and oversight data, not counts of proven authority errors.
Police · 2025
1,998
Social services · 2025
2,780
Migration · 2025
1,299
Education · 2025
777
Show all values
| Year | Police | Social services | Migration | Education |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 1,294 | 1,791 | 801 | 453 |
| 2022 | 1,481 | 1,618 | 777 | 378 |
| 2023 | 1,281 | 1,870 | 675 | 468 |
| 2024 | 1,334 | 2,049 | 887 | 500 |
| 2025 | 1,998 | 2,780 | 1,299 | 777 |
Method: Each line follows one case area. The figures do not show how many complainants prevailed.
Source: JO annual reports
The volumes are not one cohort and do not show a conviction rate.
Method: The bars show separate annual volumes and should not be converted into an outcome rate.
What the rise does—and does not—show
The increase from 11,703 to 15,429 is 3,726 cases, conventionally rounded to about 3,700 or 32 per cent. The police increase is 664 complaints, approximately 49.8 per cent. “Sharp increase” is accurate; “JO found 1,998 police violations” is not.
Complaint data also reflect awareness of JO, access to digital filing, willingness to document an encounter and repeated complaints by one person. Classification practices may affect comparisons. Measuring actual violations requires data on which cases were investigated, what JO examined and which decisions contained criticism. The totals are a warning signal and a basis for prioritisation, not a stand-alone measure of legality.
Why the police figure matters
Police exercise intrusive powers, including detention, searches, use of force and extensive processing of personal data. A rise from 1,334 to 1,998 complaints warrants analysis of recurring issues such as treatment, documentation, coercive measures, delayed investigations and failures to record crime reports. The total alone does not reveal their distribution.
The official report contains specific decisions on police inactivity, a summary fine issued without legal grounds, delayed recording of suspected domestic violence and detention without statutory support. Those decisions verify failings in the cases examined. They cannot be generalised to all 1,998 complaints, but they demonstrate why qualified oversight is necessary.
The gap between ordinary and extraordinary oversight
JO is designed as extraordinary supervision, not the first complaint desk for every operational problem. Parliament’s Constitutional Committee has repeatedly said that JO needs functioning ordinary supervision and adequate complaint systems to perform that role properly.
The Police Authority and Prison and Probation Service currently lack a general, continuous and organisationally independent external inspector covering all operations. This does not mean that they escape scrutiny: JO, the Chancellor of Justice, courts, prosecutors and specialised bodies supervise different parts, while the authorities have internal controls. The gap is that scrutiny is fragmented and JO may become the first broad external route. Prison and probation still generated the largest number of JO complaints in 2025.
According to the parliamentary debate, the Swedish Agency for Public Management (Statskontoret) is examining the need for ordinary supervision of both authorities and is to report at the end of 2026. The established gap should be distinguished from the still open question of how a new inspectorate should be organised.
What JO can do
JO examines whether authorities and officials comply with law and other rules, especially objectivity, impartiality and fundamental rights. JO can obtain records and information, request a response, inspect operations, open own-initiative cases and issue guidance or criticism. JO may also alert Parliament or the Government to needed legal changes. Special prosecution and disciplinary powers exist but are exceptional; the normal remedies are scrutiny, a reasoned decision and public criticism.
Anyone may complain free of charge, regardless of age, citizenship, residence or personal involvement. JO chooses what to investigate. Closure without investigation does not necessarily certify correct conduct; jurisdiction, priorities, unclear facts, recent review of the same issue or age of the event may explain it.
What JO cannot do
- JO cannot change a judgment or administrative decision. Appeal separately within the applicable deadline.
- JO cannot award damages and does not provide individual legal advice.
- JO normally does not investigate anonymous complaints or events more than two years old. That rule is not a promise that newer matters will be investigated.
- JO primarily supervises public authorities and public-authority functions, not ordinary disputes with companies, associations, banks, lawyers or politicians.
Public document: consider attachments carefully
A complaint and its attachments become public documents when received by JO and may be requested by others. Secrecy can protect particular information, but not automatically everything the complainant regards as private. If JO investigates, the reported authority or official normally learns the complainant’s identity. People with protected personal data or sensitive material should use JO’s web form and submit only what is needed.
JO is not SU or the Special Prosecution Chamber
JO reviews administrative legality and propriety. Suspected criminal conduct by a police employee follows another track. The Police Authority’s Department of Special Investigations (SU) investigates in segregated systems, and a prosecutor from the Special Prosecution Chamber always leads the preliminary investigation and decides on prosecution.
SU is operationally separate but remains within the Police Authority; it is not a general external inspectorate. The same event may trigger both JO scrutiny and a criminal investigation, but the questions, standards of proof and outcomes differ.
FAQ
Do 1,998 complaints prove 1,998 police errors?
No. They are registered complaints. Establishing an error requires examination, and most JO complaints do not receive a full investigation.
Can JO overturn a decision or compensate me?
No. Use the relevant appeal procedure before its deadline; damages belong to another legal route.
Is two years an absolute limitation period?
No. JO says events older than two years are normally not investigated. This administrative rule is not criminal-law limitation.
Will my complaint be public?
It becomes a public document. Protected information is withheld only after a secrecy assessment.
When should I contact SU?
For suspected crime by a police employee, call 114 14 or report at a police station. SU investigates under a special prosecutor’s direction.
Conclusion
The 2025 figures justify scrutiny, not premature verdicts. The near-50-per-cent rise in police complaints may reflect real problems as well as changing reporting behaviour. What is certain is that more people seek external review while a gap remains in general ordinary supervision of police and prisons. Statskontoret’s report at the end of 2026 will therefore be pivotal: a credible reform should create a clear first complaint route, publish comparable outcomes and preserve JO’s independent extraordinary role.
