JO:s ämbetsberättelse 2006/07

ation reacted to the judgments of the Administrative Court of Appeal in earnest
and that the instructions given to Christopher Gillberg were not the mere
smokescreen that he claims them to have been.
The information that the individuals participating in the study had been assured
confidentiality and that release of the material would be in breach of the
World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki pertains to the issue of
secrecy and is therefore of no relevance in this case.
Releasing or failing to release the documents requested constitutes the exercise
of public office. After the issue had been transferred from his section to
Vice-Chancellor level, Christopher Gillberg was no longer responsible for
implementation of the measure. His refusal to provide the documents was
however an executive measure that immediately preceded the actual exercise
of public office and which had consequences for L. E. and E. K. Christopher
Gillberg’s refusal therefore took place in the context of the university’s exercise
of public office. His refusal must therefore be considered intentional
misuse of office.
Gunnar Svedberg
As the Vice-Chancellor had assumed responsibility for the release of the
documents, it was the responsibility of Gunnar Svedberg to ensure compliance
with the judgments of the Administrative Court of Appeal.
After the Administrative Court of Appeal has issued its judgments on August
11, 2003, Gunnar Svedberg arranged on August 14 for a letter on the
subject to be drawn up and sent to Christopher Gillberg, in whose possession
the material was stored. He also initiated the practical preparations considered
necessary for the removal of the documents. Up to this point no criticism can
be made of Gunnar Svedberg’s actions. After the collection attempt had failed
on August 19, there is uncontested evidence, which is also supported by the
testimony of Mårten Persson, to show that Gunnar Svedberg looked into the
possibility of seeking the assistance of the landlord and of the Enforcement
Service. Police involvement was also considered. He also consulted Rein
Rooseniit, a lawyer, and sought the advice of the Vice-Chancellor of Umeå
University and representatives of the Ministry of Education. In the light of the
situation that had arisen, these measures may, in the short term, also be considered
adequate.
However, on September 1 Gunnar Svedberg sent a letter to L. E. and E. K.
in which he declared that he had done everything that could reasonably be
demanded and that he did not intend to take any further steps within the framework
of the university organisation. Even though he stated his intention in
the same letter of raising Christopher Gillberg’s refusal with the Disciplinary
Board for State Employees, these letters give the firm impression that Gunnar
Svedberg had given up and did not intend to do anything more to comply
with the judgments. During the following month no concrete action seems to
have been taken on the issue, which can be explained by the attempts being
made by Gunnar Svedberg to arrange a meeting with Christopher Gillberg,
but that his response was that he did not have time to meet his principal before
October 10.
The contacts that Gunnar Svedberg had with the Vice-Chancellor of Umeå
University and representatives of the Ministry of Education seem not to have
been of the kind that would lead to progress on the issue of release of the
documents. Contacts with the landlord provided the information that no extra
keys were available and also the assumption that the documents had been
deposited in a vault. No further enquiry was made into their whereabouts
even though Mårten Persson has said that he made an “ocular inspection” of
the documents and should therefore have known where they were kept. It can
hardly have seemed likely to Gunnar Svedberg that Christopher Gillberg
would agree to release the documents at the meeting planned for October 10.
BILAGA 10 2006/07:JO1
621