Skip to content
SVERIGEFAKTA

Oversight · Independent bodies

Oversight & criticism of Swedish government agencies

We don't run investigations ourselves. We compile criticism that independent bodies with a mandate have already made — always with the agency's own reply.

20
Documented cases
9
Oversight bodies
19
Agencies covered

How cases are selected

A case is only included if an independent body has issued formal, serious criticism, or if a legal/political outcome has been established. Approved sources:

  • The Swedish National Audit Office (Riksrevisionen)
  • The Parliamentary Ombudsman (JO)
  • The Chancellor of Justice (JK)
  • The Committee on the Constitution (KU)
  • The Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection (IMY)
  • The Swedish Agency for Public Management (Statskontoret)
  • The Expert Group for Aid Studies (EBA)
  • Public commissions of inquiry
  • Courts of law
  • Media reporting is never enough on its own.
  • We avoid the word scandal.
  • Settled and ongoing/not established are kept strictly apart.
  • The agency's own reply is mandatory.

Status by agency

  • Settled/established
  • Ongoing — not established
  • Polismyndigheten
    2
  • Transportstyrelsen
    1
  • Migrationsverket & kommuner
    1
  • Karolinska Institutet & Karolinska Universitetssjukhuset
    1
  • Regeringen, Folkhälsomyndigheten, MSB m.fl.
    1
  • Kommuner & regioner (särskilt boenden)
    1
  • Arbetsförmedlingen
    1
  • Försäkringskassan
    1
  • Migrationsverket
    1
  • Pensionsmyndigheten
    1
  • Finansinspektionen (tillsyn) & Swedbank
    1
  • Sida
    1
  • Skolinspektionen & Skolverket
    1
  • Kriminalvården
    1
  • Flera myndigheter (bl.a. Försäkringskassan, Polisen, Statens servicecenter)
    1
  • Skatteverket
    1
  • Regeringen (Näringsdepartementet) & Vattenfall
    1
  • Kronofogdemyndigheten
    1
  • Region Stockholm & Karolinska Universitetssjukhuset
    1

Data source: Own compilation from case database, primary-source status field. Every case links to its underlying report/decision/ruling from Riksrevisionen, JO, KU, Statskontoret, IMY and public inquiries.

Cases over time (primary-source year)

Each bar = number of cases whose primary source was published that year.

Show table

2014

Cases
2

2016

Cases
1

2017

Cases
2

2018

Cases
3

2019

Cases
2

2020

Cases
3

2021

Cases
4

2022

Cases
3

Data source: Publication year of the primary source per case (report/decision/ruling). Compiled from the case database.

Criticism by review body

Click a body to filter the case list. A case may count against several bodies.

Data source: Source: the 'Who reviewed' field on each case. Link goes to the body's mandate.

Showing 20 of 20 cases.

  1. 2020–2024 · The Swedish Prison and Probation Service (Kriminalvården)

    Overcrowding and the use of solitary confinement

    Settled/established
    What happened
    The Prison and Probation Service has had overcrowding in prisons and remand centres. JO has reviewed the use of separation and isolation, especially of young people.
    Who reviewed
    The Parliamentary Ombudsmen (JO) and the Council of Europe's Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT)
    Criticism
    JO and the CPT have criticised prolonged isolation of remand prisoners, shortcomings in outdoor exercise and human contact, and insufficient procedures for separation.
    Outcome
    In 2021 the Riksdag adopted new legislation on restrictions for young people in remand custody. The Prison and Probation Service has added places through rapidly established pavilions.
    Agency's own reply
    The Prison and Probation Service has stated that it is working on capacity expansion, reduced isolation and greater legal certainty, but that overcrowding remains a structural problem.
    Primary sourceCPT/Inf (2021) 20 — Report to the Swedish Government on the visit to Sweden 2021 (2021-09-09)JO — inspektioner av häkten och användning av restriktioner (sök diarienummer via jo.se/sv/beslut)

    Updated 2026-07-08

    Shareable link →

  2. 2018–2023 · The Swedish Schools Inspectorate (Skolinspektionen) and the National Agency for Education (Skolverket)

    Supervision of independent schools and grade inflation

    Settled/established
    What happened
    The gap between the grades set by schools and national test results has widened. Supervision of independent schools and equitable grading have been reviewed.
    Who reviewed
    The Swedish National Audit Office (Riksrevisionen)
    Criticism
    Riksrevisionen found that the state's efforts for equitable grading had been insufficient and that national tests are used too weakly as support for equity.
    Outcome
    Proposals to strengthen the role of the national tests and to digitalise them. Amended school legislation during 2022–2023.
    Agency's own reply
    Skolverket has stated that digital national tests are being introduced step by step and that guidance for teachers has been strengthened. Skolinspektionen points out that the number of inspections has increased.
    Primary sourceRiksrevisionen RiR 2022:8 — Statens insatser för likvärdig betygssättning (2022-04-28)

    Updated 2026-07-08

    Shareable link →

  3. 2020–2021 · The Swedish Police Authority (Polismyndigheten)

    The police's use of Clearview AI breached data protection law

    Settled/established
    What happened
    Employees of the Swedish Police Authority used the facial recognition service Clearview AI without the authority having decided on the processing and without an impact assessment.
    Who reviewed
    The Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection (IMY, formerly the Data Inspection Board)
    Criticism
    IMY established that the Police Authority had processed personal data in breach of the Criminal Data Act, lacked procedures and had not carried out the prescribed impact assessment.
    Outcome
    An administrative fine of SEK 2.5 million. The Police Authority was ordered to inform those affected and to introduce procedures.
    Agency's own reply
    The Police Authority has stated that the use has ceased, that internal training has been carried out and that procedures for assessing new technical tools have been introduced.
    Primary sourceIMY DI-2020-2719 — Tillsyn av Polismyndighetens användning av Clearview AI (2021-02-10)

    Updated 2026-07-08

    Shareable link →

  4. 2017–2021 · The Swedish Tax Agency (Skatteverket)

    Incorrect population register data and coordination numbers

    Settled/established
    What happened
    The Swedish National Audit Office has on several occasions reviewed the quality of the population register and the handling of coordination numbers. Errors in the population register are judged to open the way for welfare fraud and identity misuse.
    Who reviewed
    The Swedish National Audit Office (Riksrevisionen)
    Criticism
    Riksrevisionen found deficient controls when coordination numbers were assigned, weak follow-up of population register data, and that several agencies had relied on data without verified identity.
    Outcome
    A new act on coordination numbers (2022), stricter identification requirements at assignment, a population registration offence introduced in 2018 and tightened in 2023. An extended mandate for the Tax Agency to deregister incorrect data.
    Agency's own reply
    The Tax Agency has stated that it has strengthened its controls, expanded cooperation with the Police and the Migration Agency, and that more coordination numbers have been deregistered since 2022.
    Primary sourceRiksrevisionen RiR 2021:15 — Samordningsnummer till personer som inte är folkbokförda (2021-06-15)Riksrevisionen RiR 2017:23 — Folkbokföringen — ett kvalitetsarbete i uppförsbacke

    Updated 2026-07-08

    Shareable link →

  5. 2020–2022 · The Government, the Public Health Agency of Sweden, the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB) and others

    Late and insufficient response to the pandemic

    Settled/established
    What happened
    Sweden took a different path from most European countries at the start of the pandemic. A commission appointed on a cross-party basis reviewed the decisions taken and the country's crisis preparedness.
    Who reviewed
    The Corona Commission (a public inquiry led by Mats Melin)
    Criticism
    The commission found that infection control was initially insufficient, that protection of older people came too late, that the crisis organisation was fragmented and that the Government should have taken clearer command earlier in the course of events.
    Outcome
    An extended mandate for the Public Health Agency during crises, a review of pandemic preparedness and a new structure of preparedness authorities from 2022. No individual resigned as a direct result of the commission.
    Agency's own reply
    The Government and the Public Health Agency have accepted the main thrust of the criticism. The Public Health Agency also points out that the strategy has been evaluated internationally and that comparison with other countries is complex.
    Primary sourceSOU 2022:10 — Coronakommissionens slutbetänkande (2022-02-25)

    Updated 2026-07-08

    Shareable link →

  6. 2020–2022 · Municipalities and regions (residential care homes in particular)

    Shortcomings in the medical care of older people during the pandemic

    Settled/established
    What happened
    IVO reviewed the medical care of older people with covid-19 in residential care homes. A majority of the patients reviewed did not receive an individual medical assessment by a physician.
    Who reviewed
    The Health and Social Care Inspectorate (IVO)
    Criticism
    IVO found that a majority of the patients reviewed had not received an individual assessment by a physician, that documentation was deficient and that end-of-life conversations were often missing or held without the patient or their relatives.
    Outcome
    New requirements for medical assessment and documentation in regions and municipalities. Part of the background to later decisions on increased physician presence in residential care homes.
    Agency's own reply
    SKR and the municipalities concerned have stated that procedures for medical assessment and end-of-life conversations have been strengthened, and that healthcare staffing in residential care homes has been reviewed.
    Primary sourceIVO 2020 — Nationell tillsyn av medicinsk vård och behandling vid särskilda boenden (2020-11-24)

    Updated 2026-07-08

    Shareable link →

  7. 2014–2023 · Sida (the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency)

    Results follow-up in Swedish development aid

    Settled/established
    What happened
    Sida's ability to measure and report the results of aid interventions has been reviewed on several occasions.
    Who reviewed
    The Expert Group for Aid Studies (EBA) and the Swedish National Audit Office (Riksrevisionen)
    Criticism
    Recurring criticism concerns that results reporting focuses on activities and outputs rather than effects, and that learning between interventions is weak.
    Outcome
    Updated instructions on results reporting, a new strategy and governance model, and a gradual build-up of the evaluation function.
    Agency's own reply
    Sida emphasises that the effects of development cooperation are hard to attribute, that the agency has worked on improved results reporting and that EBA's reports are used in its systematic learning.
    Primary sourceRiksrevisionen RiR 2014:9 — Bistånd genom internationella organisationer (2014-06-17)EBA — flera rapporter om resultat och lärande

    Updated 2026-07-08

    Shareable link →

  8. 2018–2020 · The Swedish Enforcement Authority (Kronofogdemyndigheten)

    Shortcomings in the Enforcement Authority's enforcement work

    Settled/established
    What happened
    The Swedish National Audit Office reviewed the Enforcement Authority's work on collecting central government claims and enforcing debt recovery cases.
    Who reviewed
    The Swedish National Audit Office (Riksrevisionen)
    Criticism
    Riksrevisionen found that follow-up of efficiency and consistency in enforcement was insufficient and that digitalisation had lagged behind, with a risk that debtors are treated differently across the country.
    Outcome
    The Government tightened requirements in the appropriation directions, the Enforcement Authority increased the pace of digitalisation and introduced a new governance model for follow-up.
    Agency's own reply
    The Enforcement Authority has stated that it has taken the criticism on board, strengthened follow-up and that digital enforcement tools have been introduced step by step.
    Primary sourceRiksrevisionen RiR 2020:26 — Kronofogdens arbete med utsökning (2020-11-24)

    Updated 2026-07-08

    Shareable link →

  9. 2019–2023 · The Swedish Public Employment Service (Arbetsförmedlingen)

    The reform of the Public Employment Service — weak governance and follow-up

    Settled/established
    What happened
    After the 2019 budget compromise and the January Agreement, a far-reaching reform of labour market policy began in which private providers were to take over job matching.
    Who reviewed
    The Swedish National Audit Office (Riksrevisionen) and the Swedish Agency for Public Management (Statskontoret)
    Criticism
    Riksrevisionen and Statskontoret pointed to weak follow-up of providers, insufficient evidence for assessing the effect of the service and an unclear division of responsibility. Office closures were judged to have reduced accessibility in several localities.
    Outcome
    The pace of reform was slowed, parts of the office network were re-established, the procurement of the matching service was adjusted and governance was clarified in the appropriation directions.
    Agency's own reply
    The Public Employment Service has stated that it has taken the criticism on board, strengthened its follow-up of providers and broadened accessibility through cooperation with the Swedish Statens servicecenter.
    Primary sourceRiksrevisionen RiR 2022:6 — Rusta och matcha (2022-04-05)Statskontoret 2020:8 — Analys av Arbetsförmedlingens interna styrning och utveckling

    Updated 2026-07-08

    Shareable link →

  10. 2019–2020 · Finansinspektionen (the Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority) and Swedbank

    Swedbank money laundering and the supervision of a major bank

    Settled/established
    What happened
    Information emerged about extensive suspected money laundering through Swedbank's Baltic operations.
    Who reviewed
    Finansinspektionen (in cooperation with the Baltic supervisory authorities)
    Criticism
    Finansinspektionen directed serious criticism at the bank: deficient governance and control, insufficient anti-money-laundering procedures and inadequate information to the supervisory authority.
    Outcome
    An administrative fine of SEK 4 billion and a warning. Changes of management. Internal reviews by Clifford Chance.
    Agency's own reply
    Swedbank has stated that it has rebuilt its anti-money-laundering function, replaced management and strengthened its reporting. Finansinspektionen has followed up on the measures.
    Primary sourceFinansinspektionen FI Dnr 18-21044 — Beslut om ingripande mot Swedbank AB (2020-03-19)

    Updated 2026-07-08

    Shareable link →

  11. 2016–2020 · Region Stockholm and Karolinska University Hospital

    Reprisals against whistleblowers in health care

    Settled/established
    What happened
    Several employees who raised internal alarms about patient safety and research ethics (including in the aftermath of the Macchiarini case) stated that they had been subjected to reprisals. JO reviewed how this was handled.
    Who reviewed
    The Parliamentary Ombudsmen (JO)
    Criticism
    JO criticised the handling of internal reports and pointed out that protection for employees who raise the alarm had failed. The criticism contributed to tightening Swedish whistleblower legislation.
    Outcome
    A new Whistleblower Act (2021:890) entered into force in December 2021 with stronger protection and a requirement for internal reporting channels at all larger employers. Region Stockholm introduced a new procedure for internal alarms.
    Agency's own reply
    Region Stockholm and Karolinska University Hospital have stated that new procedures for handling internal alarms have been introduced and that the organisation now complies with the Whistleblower Act (2021:890).
    Primary sourceLag (2021:890) om skydd för personer som rapporterar om missförhållanden (2021-10-14)JO — beslut om hantering av anmälningar från anställda vid Karolinska Universitetssjukhuset (sök diarienummer via jo.se/sv/beslut)

    Updated 2026-07-08

    Shareable link →

  12. 2018–2023 · The Swedish Social Insurance Agency (Försäkringskassan)

    Legal certainty in sickness insurance

    Settled/established
    What happened
    After a period of sharply increased rejections of sickness benefit, case handling and the application of the work capacity concept were reviewed.
    Who reviewed
    The Swedish National Audit Office (Riksrevisionen) and the Swedish Social Insurance Inspectorate (ISF)
    Criticism
    Riksrevisionen found that the increase in rejections could not be explained by changes in applicants' health, and that the assessment guidance had been unclear. ISF pointed to differences in application across the country.
    Outcome
    The Government adjusted the appropriation directions, and sickness insurance was reviewed in several government bills in 2021–2022, with greater flexibility after days 180 and 365.
    Agency's own reply
    The Social Insurance Agency has stated that it has worked towards more uniform assessments, improved support for caseworkers and that the changes are followed up in its annual report.
    Primary sourceRiksrevisionen RiR 2018:9 — Nekad sjuk- och aktivitetsersättning (2018-05-22)

    Updated 2026-07-08

    Shareable link →

  13. 2015–2018 · The Swedish Police Authority (Polismyndigheten)

    The police reorganisation — weak governance and local presence

    Settled/established
    What happened
    The merger of 21 county police authorities into a single Police Authority in 2015 was followed by strong criticism of internal governance, follow-up and local presence.
    Who reviewed
    The Swedish Agency for Public Management (Statskontoret) and the Swedish National Audit Office (Riksrevisionen)
    Criticism
    Statskontoret pointed out that the reform's goals of local presence and more effective operations had not been met, that governance was unclear and that staff confidence had fallen. Riksrevisionen criticised shortcomings in forensic operations.
    Outcome
    Increased resources for the police from 2019, strengthened local presence (community police officers), new financial governance and a gradually rebuilt forensic capacity.
    Agency's own reply
    The Police Authority has stated that it has addressed the shortcomings identified through a new governance model, strengthened local police areas and expanded forensic operations, while staff shortages and recruitment remain challenges.
    Primary sourceStatskontoret 2018:18 — Ombildningen till en sammanhållen polismyndighet — slutrapport (2018-10-01)Riksrevisionen RiR 2018:34 — Polisens forensiska organisation

    Updated 2026-07-08

    Shareable link →

  14. 2017–2023 · The Swedish Migration Agency (Migrationsverket)

    Processing times and legal certainty in asylum assessment

    Settled/established
    What happened
    After 2015 the backlogs grew sharply. Processing times, medical age assessments and consistency in decisions were reviewed.
    Who reviewed
    The Swedish National Audit Office (Riksrevisionen) and the Parliamentary Ombudsmen (JO)
    Criticism
    The criticism concerned long processing times and shortcomings in the reasoning behind decisions and in consistency. JO has on several occasions criticised the agency for unacceptably long waiting times.
    Outcome
    Increased resources in certain periods, digitalisation of case handling and a changed organisation for age assessments.
    Agency's own reply
    The Migration Agency has stated that case handling has been made more efficient, that the age assessment process has been changed and that work on consistent decisions is a priority.
    Primary sourceRiksrevisionen RiR 2017:4 — Lärdomar av flyktingsituationen hösten 2015: beredskap och hantering (2017-03-28)JO — beslut om långa handläggningstider hos Migrationsverket (sök diarienummer via jo.se/sv/beslut)

    Updated 2026-07-08

    Shareable link →

  15. 2012–2019 · The Swedish Pensions Agency (Pensionsmyndigheten)

    Allra and the fund marketplace — shortcomings in supervision of the premium pension system

    Settled/established
    What happened
    The fund company Allra charged high fees on the Pensions Agency's fund marketplace. Criminal proceedings for breach of trust against a principal were brought against the company's management.
    Who reviewed
    The Swedish National Audit Office (Riksrevisionen), a public inquiry into the fund marketplace, and the courts
    Criticism
    The inquiry found deficient supervision and selection on the fund marketplace. The court found criminal offences in certain respects, but the legal position on the main charges has varied between court instances.
    Outcome
    The fund marketplace was rebuilt (fund agreements through procurement), the Fund Marketplace Board was established in 2022 and the number of funds fell sharply.
    Agency's own reply
    The Pensions Agency welcomed the new procured fund marketplace and points out that the structure that made the problems possible has now been dismantled.
    Primary sourceSOU 2019:44 — Ett bättre premiepensionssystem (2019-11-01)Svea hovrätt B 3660-20 (Allra-domen)

    Updated 2026-07-08

    Shareable link →

  16. 2015–2016 · The Swedish Migration Agency (Migrationsverket) and municipalities

    Married children were placed with adult spouses in the asylum reception system

    Settled/established
    What happened
    During the 2015 reception, a large number of children (under 18) were registered as married to adult spouses. In several cases the children were placed with the spouse without an individual assessment. The Migration Agency's procedure at the time was based on the main rule that marriages entered into abroad were recognised.
    Who reviewed
    The Health and Social Care Inspectorate (IVO), the Parliamentary Ombudsmen (JO) and the legislator
    Criticism
    The criticism concerned that the procedure then in force did not sufficiently take the best interests of the child and the Convention on the Rights of the Child into account: placement with an adult spouse was not always assessed individually, and protection against continued exploitation was inadequate.
    Outcome
    The Migration Agency and SKR issued new guidance from 2016: as a main rule, children are to be placed separately from an adult spouse. The law was changed in 2018 so that foreign child marriages are as a main rule no longer recognised in Sweden, and in 2020 a specific child marriage offence was introduced.
    Agency's own reply
    The Migration Agency has stated that its procedures were rewritten during 2016 and that the agency has followed the tightened legislation since then. The municipalities refer to the updated guidance from the National Board of Health and Welfare and SKR.
    Primary sourceSOU 2017:96 — Utvidgat hinder mot erkännande av utländska barnäktenskap (2017-12-06)JO — beslut om Migrationsverkets rutiner för gifta barn (sök diarienummer via jo.se/sv/beslut)Prop. 2017/18:288 — Förbud mot erkännande av utländska barnäktenskapProp. 2020/21:149 — Ett särskilt straffansvar för barnäktenskapsbrott (skärpning 2020)

    Updated 2026-07-08

    Shareable link →

  17. 2015–2017 · Transportstyrelsen (Swedish Transport Agency)

    IT outsourcing gave foreign technicians access to classified registers

    Settled/established
    What happened
    The Swedish Transport Agency outsourced the operation of the driving licence and vehicle registers, among others, to IBM without completing the security vetting required by the Protective Security Act. Foreign technicians gained access to protected identities and data on military vehicles.
    Who reviewed
    The Riksdag Committee on the Constitution (KU) and the Swedish National Audit Office (Riksrevisionen)
    Criticism
    The Committee on the Constitution directed serious criticism at several ministers for failures in handling information and for not informing the Riksdag in time. The Director-General was convicted of negligence with classified information.
    Outcome
    Director-General Maria Ågren received a summary penalty order (day fines). Infrastructure Minister Anna Johansson and Interior Minister Anders Ygeman resigned in 2017. A stricter Protective Security Act entered into force in 2019.
    Agency's own reply
    The Swedish Transport Agency has accepted the criticism, ordered an internal review and introduced new procedures for protective security agreements. The agency states that the deviations have been remedied and that its management has been replaced.
    Primary sourceKU 2017/18:KU20 — granskningsbetänkande (2018-04-12)Riksrevisionen RiR 2019:1 — Säkerhetsskyddet i statliga bolag och myndigheter

    Updated 2026-07-08

    Shareable link →

  18. 2015–2023 · Several agencies (including Försäkringskassan, the Police and Statens servicecenter)

    Recurring cost overruns in public IT projects

    Settled/established
    What happened
    The Swedish National Audit Office has repeatedly reviewed central government IT projects that have overrun their costs or been discontinued. The payroll system at Statens servicecenter is one of several examples.
    Who reviewed
    The Swedish National Audit Office (Riksrevisionen) and the Swedish National Financial Management Authority (ESV)
    Criticism
    Riksrevisionen pointed out that many agencies lack an overview of their IT systems, that maintenance costs are growing and that the risk of cost overruns is high when large systems are to be replaced.
    Outcome
    The Government has several times strengthened the role of ESV and Digg in following up IT investments. Statens servicecenter wound down its central payroll administration.
    Agency's own reply
    The agencies concerned have stated that governance of the IT portfolio has been strengthened, that more projects run in smaller steps and that cooperation through Digg has been expanded.
    Primary sourceRiksrevisionen RiR 2019:28 — Föråldrade it-system i staten (2019-12-05)

    Updated 2026-07-08

    Shareable link →

  19. 2009–2015 · The Government (Ministry of Enterprise) and Vattenfall

    Vattenfall's purchase of Nuon — deficient preparation within the Government

    Settled/established
    What happened
    Vattenfall bought the Dutch energy company Nuon in 2009 for around SEK 97 billion. The deal led to very large write-downs and became the subject of a review by the Committee on the Constitution.
    Who reviewed
    The Riksdag Committee on the Constitution (KU) and the Swedish National Audit Office (Riksrevisionen)
    Criticism
    The Committee on the Constitution criticised the Government's preparation ahead of the deal: documentation, valuation expertise and the formal decision-making process were all criticised. Riksrevisionen pointed to shortcomings in state ownership governance.
    Outcome
    Stricter requirements for the governance of state-owned companies, clearer documentation requirements in government decisions, and a review of the rules for major transactions in state-owned companies.
    Agency's own reply
    The Government Offices have stated that the preparation procedures for ownership governance decisions in state-owned companies have been strengthened and that documentation is now handled under a specific procedure.
    Primary sourceKU 2013/14:KU20 — Granskningsbetänkande om regeringens hantering av Vattenfalls Nuon-affär (2014-05-15)Riksrevisionen RiR 2015:6 — Vattenfall och Nuon — statens ägarstyrning

    Updated 2026-07-08

    Shareable link →

  20. 2010–2018 · Karolinska Institutet and Karolinska University Hospital

    Research misconduct and patient harm in windpipe surgery

    Settled/established
    What happened
    Surgeon Paolo Macchiarini implanted synthetic windpipes in patients. Several patients died. Subsequent investigations found misconduct in the research and failures in ethical review and recruitment.
    Who reviewed
    An external inquiry led by Sten Heckscher (Karolinska Institutet), the Central Ethical Review Board and later the Board for Assessment of Research Misconduct (NPOF)
    Criticism
    The Heckscher report established that Karolinska Institutet had failed in recruitment, oversight and its handling of whistleblowers. Macchiarini was convicted in 2022 by the district court and in 2023 by the court of appeal of causing bodily harm.
    Outcome
    Karolinska Institutet's vice-chancellor Anders Hamsten resigned in 2016. Several members of the leadership left. Sweden gained a new authority (NPOF) and a new act on research misconduct in 2020. The court of appeal sentenced Macchiarini to 2.5 years in prison in 2023.
    Agency's own reply
    Karolinska Institutet has publicly apologised to the affected patients and their relatives, published an action plan and introduced new procedures for recruitment, clinical research and whistleblowing.
    Primary sourceHeckscher-rapporten — Karolinska Institutets hantering av Macchiarini-ärendet (2016-09-05)Lag (2019:504) om ansvar för god forskningssed och prövning av oredlighet i forskning

    Updated 2026-07-08

    Shareable link →

What this doesn't say

One documented failure does not prove an agency is rotten. Criticism is part of how the system is supposed to work — that these oversight bodies exist and act is itself a sign of functioning accountability.

Frequently asked

›Why isn't case X included?

We only include cases where an independent body (National Audit Office, JO, JK, KU, IMY, Statskontoret, EBA, a public inquiry or a court) has formally issued serious criticism. Media reporting is never enough on its own. Every case also requires a documented reply from the reviewed agency.

›What counts as a primary source?

A published report, formal decision, oversight opinion or court ruling from one of the approved bodies. Links go to the actual document, not to a media summary.

›What is the difference between 'settled' and 'ongoing'?

Settled/established means a formal body has issued its finding. Ongoing — not established means an allegation exists but no body has ruled. Ongoing cases are always described as allegations, never as established wrongdoing.

›Why does the agency always get the last word?

Because a case without a reply from the reviewed agency is not published. It is a legal and journalistic hygiene rule — criticism must meet the opportunity to respond. The data type enforces it.

›Is the list updated?

Yes. Every case shows a visible update date. New cases are added when a primary source is available. Ongoing cases move to settled once a body has ruled.

›May I cite this page?

Yes, with a link to the primary source. We do not issue verdicts of our own — we compile. Prefer citing the primary source directly.

Updated on an ongoing basis. Primary source links go to the original Swedish documents.

The question this page answers

Who oversees Swedish government agencies, what kinds of criticism they can issue — and how does legal criticism differ from administrative, efficiency and systemic criticism?

At a glance

Key figures — the most important numbers on this page

Formal oversight bodies with mandate

6+

National Audit Office, JO, JK, KU, Statskontoret, ISF/EBA/IMY plus courts.

Audit reports/year (RiR)

~30–40

Swedish National Audit Office — performance and annual audit.

JO complaints/year

~9,000

Parliamentary Ombudsman — about 3 % lead to formal criticism.

Annual KU report

1

Committee on the Constitution — review of ministers' conduct per Instrument of Government ch. 13 § 1.

Instrument of Government — control power

Ch. 12

Basis for JO, JK, administrative courts and the principle of public access.

JO founded

1809/10

One of the world's oldest independent ombudsman institutions.

Statskontoret reinstated

1998

Reviews governance, efficiency and organisation on the government's behalf.

Riksrevisionen established

2003

Merged RRV and Parliamentary Auditors under the Riksdag (IG ch. 13 §§ 7–9).

What does the data show?

Objective observations — not interpretations

  • Oversight is distributed among bodies with distinct mandates. The National Audit Office reviews performance, JO reviews legality in individual cases, JK handles damages and supervision, KU reviews ministerial responsibility, Statskontoret reviews governance on the government's behalf, and administrative courts review individual decisions.
  • Legal criticism (JO, JK, court) tests whether the agency followed the law in a specific case — criticism does not automatically produce damages or sanction.
  • Administrative criticism (JO, RiR, Statskontoret) concerns routines, case handling, documentation and internal governance — usually without personal accountability.
  • Performance criticism (RiR, ESV, EBA for aid, ISF for social insurance) tests whether the operation reaches its goals at reasonable cost — evaluates outcomes, not legality.
  • Governance criticism (Statskontoret, public inquiries) concerns the government's dialogue with agencies via goal, result and appropriation directives — points to systemic issues rather than individual failures.
  • Resource and capacity issues are often raised by RiR and Statskontoret but do not constitute criticism of the agency itself — rather of governance or budget.
  • Individual high-profile cases (media, JO complaints) are signals, not diagnoses. Recurring systemic criticism only arises when several independent bodies identify the same pattern over time.

Method note
Only cases where an independent body with mandate has issued formal, serious criticism — or where a legal/political outcome has been established — are included. Media reporting is never a sole source. 'Settled/established' and 'pending/not established' are kept strictly apart — pending cases are always framed as complaints, never as established faults. The agency's own response is mandatory: cases without a reply are not published. We draw no conclusions of our own about the system — the compilation is neutral; the reader and the reviewing body make the assessment. Opinion pieces (editorials, op-eds) are never used as primary basis.

Definitions

How the numbers are counted — and what they do not cover

Swedish National Audit Office (Riksrevisionen)
The Riksdag's audit body per Instrument of Government ch. 13 §§ 7–9. Reviews public sector performance and the correctness of annual reports. Publishes 30–40 reports per year plus annual audit.
Parliamentary Ombudsman (JO)
The Riksdag's ombudsmen per IG ch. 13 § 6. Four ombudsmen review individuals' complaints against public administration, courts, municipalities, the armed forces and more. Issues an annual report.
Chancellor of Justice (JK)
The government's ombudsman under Act 1975:1339. Guards state interests, reviews damages claims against the state and exercises certain supervision over lawyers and press freedom.
Committee on the Constitution (KU)
The Riksdag committee that reviews ministers' conduct per IG ch. 13 § 1. Publishes an annual report with review notices, hearings and conclusions.
Statskontoret
Agency under the government that reviews public sector governance, efficiency and organisation on the government's behalf. Differs from RiR by working on assignment rather than own initiative.
Social Insurance Inspectorate (ISF)
Independent oversight body over the social insurance system (Försäkringskassan, the Pension Authority). Publishes efficiency and quality reviews.
Expert Group for Aid Studies (EBA)
Committee under the government that evaluates the results and efficiency of Swedish aid. Publishes reports informing aid-policy decisions.
Data Protection Authority (IMY)
Oversees data protection law (GDPR, Criminal Data Act, Camera Surveillance Act). Can impose administrative fines.
Administrative court
Reviews individual agency decisions. Three tiers: administrative court, administrative court of appeal, Supreme Administrative Court. May quash decisions that violate law.
Legal criticism
Statement from JO, JK or court that the agency did not follow applicable law in a specific case. Does not automatically produce damages — but may support such a claim before JK.
Administrative criticism
Criticism from JO, RiR or Statskontoret of the agency's routines, documentation, case handling or internal governance. Usually does not concern personal accountability.
Performance criticism
RiR's (and ISF's/EBA's) review of whether the operation reaches its goals with reasonable resource use. Evaluates outcomes and governance, not legality.
Governance criticism
Criticism from Statskontoret or public inquiries of the government's steering via goal, result and appropriation directives. Points more often to the system than to a single agency.
Recurring systemic criticism
When several independent bodies identify the same pattern across agencies over time — then we speak of systemic weaknesses rather than individual lapses.
SOU/Ds
Swedish Government Official Reports and Ministry Memoranda — the government's preparatory basis for legislation. May contain extensive review of the existing order.
Settled/established
A formal body has confirmed the criticism — report published, judgment delivered, KU statement decided, review decision issued.
Pending — not established
A complaint or review has been initiated but no body has yet taken a position. Always framed as a complaint, never as an established fault.

Primary sources

Agencies and research institutions behind this page

8

agencies/institutions

12

reports & studies

3

primary datasets

Frequently asked questions

Short answers to what is most often discussed

JO (the Parliamentary Ombudsman) is a Riksdag ombudsman and reviews individuals' complaints against agencies — ~9,000 complaints per year, of which about 3 % lead to formal criticism. JK (the Chancellor of Justice) is the government's ombudsman, reviews damages claims against the state and supervises press freedom and lawyers. JO is thus Riksdag-linked and individual-oriented, JK is government-linked and state-interest-oriented.

Related topics

Logical next steps if you want to understand the background

Sources for this page

The data comes from official primary sources.

Report an error on this pageSupport SVERIGEFAKTA
Share this page:XFacebookRedditWhatsAppEmail
Cite this page

Citations are welcome — credit SVERIGEFAKTA and link to the page, and also cite the primary source. Commercial reuse of our own material requires permission.

APA 7
SVERIGEFAKTA. (2026). SVERIGEFAKTA. Retrieved 2026-10-03, from https://sverigefakta.com/en/agency-oversight
Harvard
SVERIGEFAKTA (2026) SVERIGEFAKTA. Available at: https://sverigefakta.com/en/agency-oversight (Accessed: 2026-10-03).
Simple web citation
SVERIGEFAKTA, "SVERIGEFAKTA", https://sverigefakta.com/en/agency-oversight (accessed 2026-10-03).
BibTeX
@misc{sverigefakta_2026_en_agencyoversight,
  author       = {SVERIGEFAKTA},
  title        = {SVERIGEFAKTA},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://sverigefakta.com/en/agency-oversight}},
  note         = {Dataset v2026.2, accessed 2026-10-03}
}
Permanent link
https://sverigefakta.com/en/agency-oversight
More citation formats and rules