The Skåne Police Roma register — a real violation, not a national system
In 2013 the Skåne Police kept a register of some 4,700 people of Roma background. The register was unlawful and generated damages. But it was local — not a national ethnic register.
The claim
"The Swedish state registers Roma people on ethnic grounds."
What is supported
On 23 September 2013 Dagens Nyheter revealed that the Skåne Police maintained a register called "Kringresande" ("Travellers") with roughly 4,700 individuals — including about 1,000 children and more than 200 deceased persons. The link was family relations, in practice Roma ancestry.
The Commission on Security and Integrity Protection (SIN) ruled in March 2014 that the register lacked legal basis under the Police Data Act.
The Chancellor of Justice awarded damages of SEK 5,000 per registered person. After a class action the Supreme Court in 2017 raised the amounts to SEK 30,000 for adults and SEK 20,000 for children (case T 6014-15).
What is not supported
That the Swedish state has or has had a national register of ethnicity.
Processing personal data revealing ethnic origin is prohibited under GDPR (art. 9) and, before that, the Personal Data Act. "Kringresande" was the Skåne Police's local list built around family networks — not a central ethnicity database.
That similar registers are secretly maintained today.
SIN continuously oversees the Police's processing of personal data. Its decisions are published. Any new unlawful register would trigger the same reporting and oversight process as in 2013.
The honest conclusion
The violation was real, unlawful, and tested in court with damages awarded. But the broader claim — that the Swedish state systematically registers ethnicity — is not supported. That distrust is nonetheless rational is explained by history: forced sterilisations (1935–1975) and forced removals hit Roma and Travellers especially hard.
What this teaches us
An institution's good intentions are no protection against rights violations. Legal certainty is upheld by independent oversight (SIN), judicial review (Chancellor of Justice, Supreme Court), and a free press (Dagens Nyheter) — all three were needed for the revelation to have legal consequences.
Sources
Explicitly excluded as sources: Flashback, Nordfront and anonymous blogs.
Updated 2026-07-08