Migrant was to be deported but received incorrect instructions from the Migration Agency – receives substantial compensation

In connection with the Migration Agency’s decision that the man could not remain in Sweden, he was also ordered to regularly report to a police station. When he later appealed, it emerged that the supervision order was not legal.

It was in September 2019 that the Migration Agency decided to deport the man, placing him under supervision, which meant he had to report to the police once a week — specifically on Tuesdays between 10 am and 4 pm.

Supervision decisions must be reviewed within six months and if this is not done within the prescribed time frame, the decision ceases to apply, something that was not stated in the documents given to the man. Even though the decision was not reviewed after six months, and thus ceased to apply on March 30, 2020, the man was still instructed by the Migration Agency in April to continue reporting to the police.

The man appealed the decision, first to the Migration Court, which rejected the appeal, and then to the Migration Court of Appeal, which did not grant leave to appeal.

Had ceased to apply

In January 2022, the man appealed the supervision order again and after the Migration Agency reviewed the case, it was established that the decision had ceased to apply as of March 30, 2020, and now both the Migration Agency and the Police Authority are being criticized by the Chancellor of Justice (JK) for their handling of the case.

The Parliamentary Ombudsmen (JO) have criticized the Migration Agency and the Police Authority for their handling of the applicant’s case (JO’s case numbers 2018-2022 and 3024-2022). According to the JO’s decision, at the police station where the applicant reported, there was a form noting each time he fulfilled his reporting obligation. The first entry is from October 8, 2019 and the last is from February 8, 2022. The applicant thus continued to report to the police station for almost two years after the decision had expired. There is no evidence of any interruption in these reports during the period.

Chancellor of Justice Thomas Bull. Photo: JK

Wants two million

After it emerged that the decision had ceased to apply already in March 2020, the man demanded two million kronor in damages from the Swedish state, citing that he was “subjected to inhuman treatment and deprived of his freedom for over two years.”

The Chancellor of Justice considers that the supervision decision did not mean that the applicant was prevented from moving outside such a severely restricted area that he was deprived of his liberty within the meaning of the Deprivation of Liberty Act, and therefore compensation cannot be paid under that law. Nor does the Chancellor believe that the measure was so intrusive as to be considered deprivation of liberty as referred to in Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Instead, the Chancellor of Justice assesses that the violation is such that compensation is necessary as reparation and determines reasonable compensation to be 60,000 kronor. Since the Parliamentary Ombudsman has already criticized the Migration Agency and the Police Authority for their poor handling of the applicant’s case, they are satisfied with this.