JO:s ämbetsberättelse 2006/07

2006/07:JO1 BILAGA 10
612
the statutes and other regulations and otherwise discharge their obligations
fully. According to their instructions the Parliamentary Ombudsmen are to
pay particular attention to the compliance of the courts of law and public
authorities with the provisions in the Instrument of Government on, for instance,
objectivity.
With this background, there are reasons to question the decision of the
County Administrative Board in 1986 to place the Storsjö monster under
protection, this in spite of the fact that one of its tasks is to encourage tourism.
I have then weighed the protection order and the circumstances around it
against the self-evident requirement that those who discharge duties in the
public administration must not devote time and energy to matters that do not
fall within their obligations and responsibilities. Furthermore, I have also
taken into account how important it is for an authority not to use its powers in
unintended ways and in addition considered the question of whether the extensive
review that preceded the decision to issue the protection order was
justifiable. Another question to which I have devoted some thought is whether
in the future there can be any justification for County Administrative Boards
and appeal courts to be burdened, as in this case, with cases relating to the
protection order.
According to their instructions the Parliamentary Ombudsmen should not
deal with cases that date from more than two years previously unless there are
special grounds for doing so. In my opinion, there are no such grounds apart
from those adduced above to look any more closely into or refer to what preceded
the decision by the County Administrative Board in 1986 to issue the
regulation placing the Storsjö monster under protection.
Nor can I see any grounds for further consideration of the manner in which
the County Administrative Board dealt with the application for exemption in
2002 and 2003.
The Environmental Court found that the constitution contained provisions
that prevented the application of the County Administrative Board’s regulation
placing the Storsjö monster under protection. I share the opinion of the
court on this matter. In view of the fact that the regulation must therefore be
considered to lack any legal force there are, in my opinion, good grounds for
the County Administrative Board to consider the issue of the continued validity
of the regulation. I note that according to its statement the County Administrative
Board intends to review this issue without delay and request the
County Administrative Board to forward its decision to the Parliamentary
Ombudsmen for their information.
After the Parliamentary Ombudsman had concluded the case, the County
Administrative Board forwarded the following decision for his information.