10. Report to the Swedish Chancellor of Justice

The Chancellor of Justice supervises authorities and their officials, and aims to check that laws and other constitutions are complied with.[1]

24th of Mai 2024, The trade union ST reported  the Energy Agency to the Chancellor of Justice as below:

Trade union ST

The Chancellor of Justice

registrar@jk.se May 24, 2024

REQUEST FOR DAMAGES BY THE STATE

Applicant: “Anna”

Representative: federal lawyer Joakim Lindqvist Box 5308 102 47 Stockholm Phone: 08-790 51 44

Email: joakim.lindqvist@st.org

Defendant: The State through the Chancellor of Justice

The matter: Damages, violation of the prohibition of retaliation, etc. _______________________________________________________________________________

In my capacity as representative for Anna, I hereby submit the following request for damages from the state. Power of attorney is sent in original as soon as possible.

Demanding

Anna demands that the state be obliged to pay her non-profit damages in respect of infringement of SEK 200,000.

Basics

Through the Energy Agency, the state has violated Anna’s fundamental freedoms and rights according to ch. 2. the form of government, the foundation of freedom of expression and according to the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by taking reprisals against Anna because she has used her freedom of expression, freedom of demonstration and freedom of assembly.

In addition, Anna’s rights have been violated through incorrect and disproportionate application of the law, such as the Security Protection Act and in violation of the absolute prohibition in ch. 2 § 21 third sentence RF and ch. 2 § 2 RF. Furthermore, the reprisals have consisted of a suspension which according to the constitution may not be taken without the support of law. There has been no such legal support. If the action on the part of the authority is not considered to constitute a violation of the constitution, it must in any case be considered to constitute error and negligence in the exercise of authority to the extent that damages must be paid.

Introduction

Characteristic of Western democracies is that the state administration is apolitical in such a way that the employees within the administration do not have to be members of, or sympathize with, the ruling party or parties. When a Western democracy, after general elections, changes government, administrative authorities and courts are not purged of the employees who in private contexts, in whole or in part, share opinions with the losing side of the election. This should be self-evident.

Equally, it should be pointed out that a hallmark of totalitarian and authoritarian states is that civil servants must be politically loyal to the ruling party in all aspects of their lives – dissidents are registered and out of work or worse. These countries are obviously not western-style states of law. It is of the utmost importance to protect Swedish democracy and the rule of law against tendencies that seek to politicize the civil servant role. In states governed by the rule of law in general and in Sweden in particular, the impact of democracy as well as the legitimacy and efficiency of the administration is protected through a focus on the competence and actual actions of civil servants.

Rule of law principles

In the form of government’s (RF) portal paragraph, it is stated i.a. that public power is exercised under the laws, ch. 1 1 § 3 par. RF. In the same chapter, it is stipulated that courts and administrative authorities and others who perform public administrative tasks must in their activities take into account everyone’s equality before the law and observe objectivity and impartiality, ch. 1. § 9 RF. These statutes are the cornerstones of an administration in a functioning democracy and the rule of law. Additional guarantors of the legitimacy of the rule of law focus on the competence and integrity of officials. Of 12 ch. § 5 par. 2 § RF states that when deciding on government employment, regard must be attached only to objective grounds, such as merit and skill. It is further stipulated in ch. 12. § 7 RF that basic regulations on the legal status of state employees in other respects than those affected by this form of government are announced by law. The basic principles are further developed in other parts of the legislation, such as the Administrative Act’s rules on decisions, etc., the Public Employment Act’s rules on side jobs, employment and disciplinary liability but also in the Criminal Code’s rules on misconduct, breach of confidentiality etc. In the second chapter of the form of government, basic freedoms and rights are regulated, including freedom of opinion, which also form central parts of a functioning democracy.

Chapter 2 § 1 RF

Everyone is insured against the general public

1 freedom of expression: freedom to communicate information and express thoughts, opinions and feelings in speech, writing or image or in any other way,

2 freedom of information: freedom to obtain and receive information and to otherwise take part in the opinions of others,

3 freedom of assembly: freedom to organize and participate in gatherings for information, expression of opinion or other similar purpose or for performance of artistic work,

4 freedom of demonstration: freedom to organize and participate in demonstrations in public places,

5 freedom of association: freedom to associate with others for public or individual purposes, and freedom of religion: freedom to alone or together with others practice their religion.

The freedom of opinion can be limited if it is done in accordance with the regulations in the statute in ch. 2 §§ 20 – 25 RF. In this regard, the following regulations should be highlighted in particular

Chapter 2 § 21 RF

Restrictions according to § 20 may only be made to meet purposes that are acceptable in a democratic society. The restriction must never go beyond what is necessary with regard to the purpose that has prompted it, nor extend so far that it poses a threat to the free formation of opinions as one of the foundations of the People’s National Board. The restriction must not be made solely because of political, religious, cultural or other such views (emphasis added). Law (2010:1408).

The first and second sentences imply that there is an outer limit for restrictions and that a proportionality assessment must be made. Requirements for proportionality assessments are also found in other legislation such as the Administrative Act. According to the statement in the bill, the absolute prohibition in the third sentence against restriction based solely on opinion covers both legislation and law enforcement. The prohibition thus means that the legislator cannot decide on a regulation that enables interference solely because of someone’s real or presumed opinion on political, religious or certain other issues, but also that it is not possible for an implementing authority to interfere with someone’s freedoms and rights solely because of his view.1

In addition to the positive freedoms of opinion above, there are also the so-called negative freedom of opinion.

Chapter 2 § 2 RF

No one may be forced by the general public to make known their views in political, religious, cultural or other such respects. [second sentence omitted here]

Chapter 2 § 3 RF No Swedish citizen may without consent be recorded in a public register solely because of his political views. Law (2010:1408).

This protection is absolute and cannot be limited in any way.

Security Protection Act (2018:585)

The current Security Protection Act entered into force on 1 April 2019 and then replaced the 1996 Security Protection Act. In the preliminary work, the need for a new law is touched on, among other things. in the paragraph quoted below.

Today’s security policy threats, or threats that are of such a nature that they can have security policy consequences, is often cross-border, not military and not infrequently emanate from non-state actors. Examples of such threats are international terrorism and other types of gross cross-border crime, information and cyber security threats, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the production and transport of weapons, components and technology. [2]

According to the Security Act, security protection refers to the protection of security-sensitive activities against espionage, sabotage, terrorist crimes and other crimes that may threaten the business, as well as protection in other cases of security-classified information. In the preparatory work, as an example of other crimes, the theft of computers in an air surveillance system can lead to limitations in the protection of Sweden’s territory, even though this was not the intention of the theft.[3]

A security check must be carried out by employees and others who will participate in security-sensitive activities. According to ch. 3 § 2 of the Security Protection Act, the examination aims to clarify whether a person can be assumed to be loyal to the interests protected in this act and otherwise reliable from a security point of view. During the security assessment, such circumstances must be taken into account that can be assumed to involve vulnerabilities in terms of security. The terms loyal and reliable are developed in the bill to the law.

The reliability assessment must include not only an assessment of whether there is a risk that the person in question may be guilty of espionage or the like, but also of the risk that the person may be exposed to various pressures or risks for the individual through carelessness or otherwise inadvertently discloses classified information. With the loyalty test primarily refers to an assessment of whether there is e.g. on due to ties with a foreign power or a terrorist organization, there is a risk that the person will commit crimes actions.

Decisions concerning security clearance are administrative law decisions that cannot be appealed. The European Court of Justice has determined that exclusion from the workplace for safety reasons and, as a consequence, a loss of employment relates to such civil rights as are covered by Article 6 of the European Convention. The Convention applies as Swedish law. The Labor Court states in its judgment AD 2019 no. 39 that the court cannot review a safety protection case, but that Sweden fulfills its obligations under the convention by the court examining the actual circumstances within the framework of its examination of factual grounds (now factual grounds) when terminating permanent employment in accordance with section 7 the Employment Protection Act. Probationary employment and certain other fixed-term employment are not covered by Section 7 of the Employment Protection Act, and there is thus no opportunity to have one’s civil rights tried in those cases. Sweden thus does not fulfill its commitments according to the European Convention.

According to chapter 5 § 4 of the security protection ordinance (2021:955), the result of the security assessment must be documented in cases where a person has been judged to be reliable from a security point of view and a decision has been made about employment or other participation in the business. It appears from the appendix to the safety protection regulation that the Swedish Energy Agency has the authority to carry out safety tests.

Extinction Rebellion and Mothers Rebellion

The name Extinction Rebellion (abbreviated XR) comes from Great Britain, but the designation is used by climate policy activists in Sweden. It is not a registered non-profit association per se and people cannot be granted membership, but it is an open movement linked to groups in social media and a website. There are thus no official missions or statutes, but it is a loose network that goes by the name Extinction Rebellion. Loose networks without actual membership are a common phenomenon in society. Examples include football supporters of a certain team, belonging to a certain musical or cultural subgenre, e.g. “raggare”. According to the website, anyone who supports Extinction Rebellion’s demands and follows their basic principles and values ​​can trade in Extinction Rebellion’s name. Requirements and basic principles are stated on the website and attached as a printout, see appendix 1. The website also contains writings about civil disobedience, see attached transcript, appendix 2.

The rebel mothers are the name of a sub-network within Extinction Rebellion that organizes mothers, other parents and allies, see transcript from the website, appendix 3. The rebel mothers carry out calm and emotional manifestations where they take place in the public space, often by sitting down together and form a circle and sing and give speeches. There is no civil disobedience at the Rebel mothers’ demonstrations and demonstrations. A police commissioner who works with demonstrations describes the rebel mothers in an interview in Dagens Nyheter as “extremely peaceful”, see attached article appendix 4.

A search in the legal database JUNO for criminal convictions where the words “Extinction rebellion” appear leads to a double-digit number of hits. In the absolute majority of these judgments, the defendants for Disobedience to the authorities are sentenced to the lowest possible fine, i.e. 30 day fines. The crime descriptions can generally be summarized as that the defendants have obstructed car traffic with their bodies at the same time as presenting climate policy messages on placards, banners or orally. They have not heeded the police’s calls to move and have subsequently been taken away by the police.

The corresponding search for criminal judgments where the “rebel mothers” appear does not yield any hits at all.

Civil disobedience

As can be seen from the transcript in Appendix 2, civil disobedience is a political ideology that existed long before Extinction rebellion. Famous historical examples include Rosa Parks, Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King. The Left Party and the Green Party – two Swedish Riksdag parties that are currently in opposition have writings about civil disobedience in their party programs.

The Left Party’s party programme

“The left party is fighting to change what we perceive as wrong decision the parliamentary way. But democracy is not just about laws and rules. Civil disobedience is an ultimate possibility for people who lacking the power to defend in other ways popularly rooted values ​​which human rights and natural resources. Civil disobedience is based on the principle of non-violence and openness.” page 21

The Green Party’s party programme

“Civil disobedience has been an important part of the struggle for democracy. By civil disobedience is meant actions that are today prohibited, but which draw attention to injustices and social problems according to the principles of non-violence, openness, the pursuit of dialogue and readiness to take their punishment. Even in the future, civil disobedience can be significant in democracy.” page 5

Representatives of other Swedish parties have also in various contexts expressed sympathy for civil disobedience or for people who have participated in civil disobedience. The most contemporary and prominent example of this is when the current climate minister appeared in public three years ago wearing a T-shirt with the text: Hide a refugee. If it’s illegal, hide two! See the attached transcript from the newspaper Aftonbladet, appendix 5. This was thus a direct call for civil disobedience.

Circumstances

Anna, who is a Swedish citizen, was employed as an administrator at the Swedish Energy Agency from and including 2023-10-16, see attached employment certificate, appendix 6. Duties are described in the employment certificate to currently consist of: Coordination of energy gases, analysis, project management, consultancy. Anna was hired because on objective grounds, such as skill and merit, she was the best qualified for the position. Her track record mainly includes work in the private business world.

The employment at the Energy Agency, a permanent employment with an initial probationary period, was placed in a security class according to the Security Protection Act (2018:585). Anna underwent a security check in June in connection with the appointment and was open about her commitment to climate policy. She saw this as an advantage as one of the authority’s tasks is to work with the green transition.

Anna performed her work without remarks from either her immediate supervisor K.B or the superior manager A.W. However, during working hours, Anna received several phone calls and text messages from a former employee at the authority, G.B. who was now employed by an organization that works with political influence. GB gave unsolicited instructions to Anna how to do her job with undertones that things would go wrong if she didn’t follow them. It was not only Anna who was contacted by G.B. but he also had contact with Anna’s managers and other employees at the Energy Agency. GB has published a book which, according to the Energy Agency’s own information, largely concerns security and classified material, see transcript from the Energy Agency’s website, appendix 7.

In January 2024 when G.B. called, Anna made a note in the program OneNote. GB says on this occasion that there would be unforeseeable consequences if the Energy Agency makes the wrong decision. Furthermore, G.B. claims that he has been in contact with ministers Busch, Svantesson and Bohlin. For Anna, it is not clear what kind of decision G.B. refers to and it is not clarified during the conversation either. Anna does not make any independent authority decisions on behalf of the Energy Agency within the framework of her administrative position.

At the end of March 2024, Anna has development talks with K.B. Anna took notes during the conversation something like K.B. didn’t do. During this conversation, there was no criticism of how Anna performed her work, nor was there any criticism connected to the Security Protection Act. There was no indication that there was a risk that her probationary employment might be terminated.

A week or so later, on the first of April, which this year coincided with Easter Monday, Anna receives an SMS to her work phone from G.B. where he attached screenshots from Anna’s private page on Facebook. On her Facebook page, Anna has shared posts from e.g. The rebel mothers. GB writes How can someone like you work at the Energy Agency! Furthermore, G.B. states that the screenshots have also been sent by SMS to K.B. and A.W. Furthermore, it appeared that an article about Anna and the Energy Agency would be published in the near future.

Through the Rebel mothers, Anna has used her freedom of demonstration and freedom of assembly on a few occasions during and before her employment with the Energy Agency. The demonstrations took place during free time and were of a political nature aimed at raising public opinion on the climate issue, including the need to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and raise awareness of the potential consequences of global warming, the address was in the form of an appeal for the children’s future connected to motherhood. There were no disturbances or violations of the law at the gatherings where Anna participated. The exact structure of these licensed demonstrations or manifestations that Anna attended varied somewhat, but essentially it involved a group of about a hundred singing mothers with placards sitting in a ring in, for example, a square.

Anna has also shared various posts about the climate issue on her private Facebook page. On the page, there is also a film clip that is just under an hour long from one of the rebel mothers’ demonstrations. A small part of the clip is an interview with Anna that is a few seconds long. Anna essentially answers the following when asked why she is there. – It is not enough to have reports on the climate issue because no one reads them without trying to reach people to people. The Swedish Energy Agency is not mentioned, nor does it appear in any other way. Anna has also had material from the organization Greenpeace. She has also been invited to speak to high school students about the climate issue.

Anna has not committed any crimes and has previously gone unpunished – she is also not suspected of any crime. Anna has not in any context either on demonstrations, Facebook or in other contexts called for civil disobedience or other violations of the law. There have been no connections to her employment at the Energy Agency in any of these contexts.

Tuesday, April 2, the day after Anna received the SMS from G.B. Anna works from home. She is then called by K.B. It appears that even K.B. have received SMS from G.B. Anna is interrogated in detail about her climate policy commitment within the Rebel mothers for an hour. Questions are asked about whether Anna has committed violations of the law, civil disobedience, which demonstrations she has participated in. Anna explains that she participates in demonstrations because reports are not enough, but that the climate message must be visible, disturb and touch people in order to get across. K.B, for example as the Rebel mothers try to reach out, to disrupt everyday life on an emotional level through music and culture. K. B. also asks in-depth questions about how Anna views civil disobedience. Anna is clear that she herself would never commit a criminal act such as civil disobedience. She states that she does not defend civil disobedience, but that she can explain it as a method.

K. B. returns later during the day by phone and clarifies that he sees the Rebel mothers and the network around them as a security threat to Swedish energy supply and that Anna’s connections there and her attitude to civil disobedience mean that she cannot keep the position she has with the authority. K. B. states that Anna will be allowed to continue with ongoing tasks until the employment ends. On the same day, April 2, Anna receives a notice from the Energy Agency announcing its intention to terminate her probationary employment on April 14 (which is later changed to April 16).

On the evening of April 3, an article is published in the magazine Fokus in which Anna is described as a “tremendous risk to the security of the kingdom”. This is followed by an editorial in Svenska dagbladet on the morning of April 4 with the headline “The state has an open house for security threats”.

Anna, who is still working at home, receives a message that same day, April 4, that A.W. immediately comes and collects her work computer and phone. A few minutes later, A.W. calls. at her door and immediately takes her computer and phone despite Anna asking for the opportunity to transfer some private files such as her CV and portfolio. The SMS from G.B. also stays on the phone.

Minister Carl-Oscar Bohlin contacted the Energy Agency’s Director General Robert Andrén on the same day. Bohlin then commented on the matter on X (formerly Twitter): »During the conversation with GD it emerged that the authority has dealt with the situation in substance and will get to the bottom of how this situation could arise in the first place and ensure that this cannot happen again (my italics) . All this is good, but the fact that the situation was even able to arise raises many question marks and illustrates the need for the follow-up work that is now taking place and that no question marks are left unanswered. This kind of thing simply shouldn’t be allowed to happen.«

Carl-Oscar Bohlin has been reported to KU by two opposition parties due to his actions.

Anna is then completely suspended from work until April 8, when she can attend a unit meeting and say goodbye to her work colleagues. Then there is a final questioning of Anna where K.B. and one more person from the employer participates. Anna is asked if she has leaked classified information, which of course she has not.

After that, Anna is suspended again until the employment ends on 16 April 2024.

Anna then, with the support of her party transparency, requests on April 16 all documents from the Energy Agency relating to her cases according to the Security Protection Act as well as all documents received from G.B. and which touches her. The Swedish Energy Agency releases documents regarding the registrations made by the agency and references taken. Written decisions or written justification do not seem to have been drawn up either when Anna was approved at the security screening in connection with her employment or when she was rejected in April 2024. The SMS that G.B. have sent to at least K.B. A.W and Anna’s service phone is not considered by the authority to be a public document. This despite the fact that they have clearly served as a basis for decisions by the authority and they can be accessed through the service telephones. Anna’s SMS and call log must be found at the telecommunications operator. When Anna insists on being allowed access to the SMS and her own call log, the authority lets it be known that they have now deleted these, see attached email correspondence appendix 8 with decision appendix 8 b. The processing also takes an unreasonably long time.

The basis and justification that Anna has received regarding her safety review decision derives mainly from the director general’s statement in Svenska dagbladet, see attached article, appendix 9 and a press release on the Energy Authority’s website, see attached transcript appendix 10.

On April 23, a trade union negotiation will be held between the ST Trade Union and the Energy Authorities to clarify the circumstances surrounding Anna’s situation. The employer now adds that Anna has not “delivered in all three energy policy parts” but cannot further justify this. Given that this was not mentioned during Anna’s development interview at the end of March, the statement appears to be an afterthought. Regarding the security protection case, the employer believes that Anna lacks loyalty according to the Security Protection Act and that she has vulnerabilities. Nor is this further justified.

Legal argumentation

The Energy Authority’s measures have not been preceded by careful considerations, but instead the decisions have been made hastily after external influences and without the authority having further justified its positions.

First of all, claims that Anna’s views on civil disobedience are covered by the absolute prohibition, ch. 2, § 21, third sentence RF. Furthermore, Anna is forced to explain her political views in detail to K.B. on April 2 when K.B. makes the assessment that Anna has an impermissible political attitude in relation to her employment.

If the Chancellor of Justice considers that the circumstances do not fall under the absolute prohibitions but that a balance must be made, the following should be taken into account in such an assessment.

Anna has not held any managerial position at the authority, but according to her employment certificate, has been employed as an administrator with currently certain tasks as a gas coordinator. The employment agency is not one of the law enforcement authorities or the armed forces. She has not criticized the authority or committed any criminal act or incited a criminal act such as civil disobedience either privately or in the service.

The charges against Anna are that people who pretend to belong to another part of the same network in which Anna participated have committed criminal acts such as disobedience to law enforcement. This reasoning of Guilt by Association or association debt in Swedish is a very weak line of argument. It appears, e.g. unreasonable to attribute blame to peaceful football supporters for the crimes committed by violent football supporters against law enforcement.

Anna’s political attitude towards civil disobedience essentially coincides with what is expressed in the party programs of the Green Party and the Left Party. However, Anna has not been as radical as the Minister of the Environment, who actively called for civil disobedience. If the Energy Agency’s reprisals are considered permissible, it means that everyone who supports the party programs of these two parties cannot hold security-classified jobs within the state. That would mean an order that is not acceptable in a democratic society.

Minister Carl-Oscar Bohlin’s statement can in the long run be interpreted as that he wants the authority to introduce routines where employees and job seekers are screened for certain party political opinions belonging to the opposition.

Under all circumstances, the retaliation taken by the Energy Agency against Anna must be considered disproportionate in relation to the strong protection that exists for public employees’ freedom of speech and opinion. Here, the Chancellor of Justice’s decision in the cases with diary no. 7068- 06-21, 7069-06-21, 1189-07-21 with decision date of 7 August 2008 but also the Ombudsman’s decision of 25 September 2009 in the case with diary no. 149-2009.

Regarding the issue of suspension, the Labor Court has stated in AD 2022 no. 49 that the suspension of state employees is such a basic provision that according to ch. 12 § 7 RF must be announced by law and cannot be regulated by labor law agreements. The issue of suspension has since been the subject of investigation in several separate contexts, but no legislation has yet been introduced. According to Section 5 of the Administration Act, an authority may only take measures that are supported by the legal order. In this case, it is clear that the decision to suspend Anna during the last weeks of her employment lacked such support. This must constitute error and negligence in the exercise of authority.

Many other state employees have contacted the ST union and expressed fear about the risk of losing their jobs if they participate in peaceful demonstrations or are caught with political views that the authorities disapprove of. Anna’s case is therefore not only of importance to herself, but also to employees within the state in general.

Stockholm as above

Joakim Lindqvist

Federal lawyer

Attachments:

1. About us – XR Sweden, 24 May 2024

2. Civil disobedience – XR Sweden, 7 May 2024

3. The rebel mothers – XR Sweden, 23 May 20224

4. Dagens Nyheter – Anna is a climate activist, published April 10, 2024 5. Aftonbladet – Hide a refugee, it becomes illegal, hide two, published August 16, 2023

6. Employment certificate

7. Printout from the Energy Agency’s website – On the occasion of G.B.’s book on the Energy Agency

8. Email correspondence and 8 b decision decision request to issue a public document

9. Svenska Dagbladet – The Energy Agency about the fired activist, published April 16, 2024

10. Printout from the Energy Agency’s website – Information on handling of security-classified service

On August 27, 2024, a response is received from the Energy Agency in which they maintain that the agency has not violated my fundamental freedoms and rights. The reason why I had to leave must now be that I myself caused the decision to approve my security clearance to be made incorrectly:

‘The agency notifies that Anna herself are responsible for that the decision regarding her security clearance was done incorrectly and therefor, Anna are not approved.’

The answer contains several factual errors, which can be seen in ST’s email below. Among other things, I am accused of having answered  negative to the question ‘whether there was any involvement, membership, connection, association or sympathies with any organisation, movement or the like’. I swear I was never asked that question. If I had I would have started rambling! Of course there are a lot! If a job seeker answeres negative to such a question, I would find it very strange, and it would probably need a follow-up question on a security screening interview. I may have been asked that question with the addition: ‘which affects your professional practice’, and then I still answer no. What I do in my spare time does not affect my professional practice.

But, my knowledge of the climate issue affects my professional practice, it was, among other things, because of my knowledge that I was employed. 

I have later received the meeting notes from the security clearance interview, and there is nothing to support the theory that I would have been asked this particular question. I did not lie in the security interview! Interesting in the answer is that the connection to the Rebel mothers or Extinction Rebellion is suddenly completely gone.

Trade union ST

Phone: 0771-555 444

www.st.org

The Chancellor of Justice

registrar@jk.se September 20, 2024

CASE DNR 2024-3641 ANNA ./. THE ENERGY AUTHORITY

In my capacity as representative for “Anna” and submitted to it, I submit my opinion above The Energy Agency’s letter dated 27 August 2024. The abbreviations used in the first the submission “Request for compensation by the state” is also used here. What was previously stated is maintained with the additions and clarifications set out below. It does not appear on the website Sverigestalare.se that “Anna” and Marie are the same person, which is one conscious choice. Because it is both stigmatizing and offensive to be in the media and by the authorities portrayed as a threat to Sweden’s security, “Anna” wishes to remain “Anna” to such a large extent as possible.

SMS from G.B. to Anna’s boss K.B.

In its statement, the Energy Agency mentions that the authority was alerted on March 29, 2024 that Anna appeared in social media and that there was a case with the authority regarding this documented (Dnr 2024-5024). This was completely new information for Anna and for the undersigned. To the matter hears that on April 16, 2024, Anna specifically requested access to all documents received from or sent to G.B. and that touched her. A request that was then repeated on May 3 2024, see at the end of Appendix 8 Mail Correspondence, which was filed with the first submission. Anna did not receive the SMS correspondence until 2 September 2024. The Energy Agency committed a crime mistake and neglected to send the documents to Anna in the shipment sent to her on 18 April 2024, see attached e-mail correspondence, attachment 1 where Anna receives an apology for the extradition has taken four and a half months. The text messages that G.B. sent to Anna’s manager K.B, this opinion is attached, see appendix 2. The SMS contains partly a screenshot or link to the film clip of the manifestation that Anna described on p. 8 the second paragraph of his first submission, partly an incorrect claim that participation in a demonstration would constitute a side job.

The now stated reasons for the safety assessment are an after-the-fact construction

In its opinion, the Swedish Energy Agency has now stated a new and previously unknown justification for its decision to reconsider Anna’s placement in security class.

“The authority has not taken any position on the matter regarding either XR, RM or what else occurred on e.g. social media, without the fact that MH under the security clearance interview was not candid and withheld information of importance to one correct security clearance is reason enough for MH not to be considered reliable and loyal security point of view.”

This is not the truthful justification for why Anna lost her security clearance but it has been constructed afterwards when the authority has understood that the real reasons, i.e. Anna’s political opinion regarding civil disobedience as well as her participation in peaceful demonstrations/manifestations, are reasons that are not compatible with the legal order.

At the trade union negotiation held on 23 April 2024 between the ST Trade Union and The Swedish Energy Agency and where, among other things, undersigned did not mention that Anna would have withheld information or has failed to be candid at his initial security clearance interview and that it would constitute a reason for her to lose her security classification. Because this negotiation aimed at clarifying the circumstances of why Anna lost her employment, it appears which ruled out that the authority would have failed to mention these circumstances if they actually existed at the time.

As previously stated in the first submission, the justification that Anna has received about hers remains security review decision mainly from the director general’s statement in Svenska dagbladet, see, appendix 9 to the first submission and a press release on the Swedish Energy Agency’s website, see appendix 10 to the first submission. In the article in Svenska dagbladet, the director general does not mention at all that Anna would have withheld information or was not honest. However, the director general does on page two i the article a direct connection between using one’s right to demonstrate and thereby forfeiting their right to hold certain positions, see quote below.

‘Is there a risk that you then exclude people who engage in an activity as per many are completely legitimate, from this type of job?

– It is a civil right to demonstrate, but it is not a civil one right to hold certain services.

It always boils down to a risk assessment.

– When it comes to Extinction Rebellion, which has been the case in this matter, we cannot forget that they have been involved in energy infrastructure and demonstrated against it. Then can you ask if it is compatible to be part of them while doing a job which deals specifically with energy infrastructure.’

Here, then, a causal connection is indicated between Anna’s participation in peaceful demonstrations where “wrong” political opinion was expressed and that she lost her security clearance.

The press release on the Energy Agency’s website also does not state that Anna lost hers classified service because she had withheld information or had not been candid. Instead, it is explicitly stated in paragraph four why the authority immediately took measures such as were deemed necessary to avoid possible security risks (i.e. Anna took away her security clearance, terminated her employment and suspended her): 

‘This is because involvement in movements that actively advocate and in parts make use of civil disobedience as a tool to influence public opinion and decision-makers can be an obstacle in order to maintain a security-classified service.’

Here, too, direct causality is stated between Anna’s participation in peaceful demonstrations along with “wrong” political views with her losing her security clearance. 

There is also a logical inconsistency in the Energy Authority’s reasoning. Anna’s boss K.B. cannot called Anna on 2 April 2024 because he was upset that Anna withheld information at his security clearance interview. It is clear from the SMS in Appendix 2 that the demonstration took place on 23 September 2023, while Anna’s security clearance interview took place in June 2023. Anna could not be expected then in June 2023 to have told about an event that had not yet occurred. 

Decisions on 2 April 2024 and 4 April 2024 

It is correctly stated that on April 2, 2024, Anna was informed that her probationary employment was not would transfer to a permanent employment. However, Anna worked as usual on April 2 and 3 April 2024. During these two days, she still had her computer and her service phone and authorized to the authority’s computer system. The authority then makes a new assessment on April 4, where Anna is closed of in violation of the law and is deprived of work computer and phone. This new decision cannot be founded on some other circumstances than the media drive that started with the article i The focus was published on the evening of April 3 and continued on platform x and further with leader i Svd on the morning of April 4, 2024 where Peter Wennblad called on the civil minister to call up the authority’s director general to find out what went wrong. 

The now stated reasons for the refusal are also not the legal ones 

If the Chancellor of Justice should find that, despite the argumentation above, there is reason to materially test the Swedish Energy Agency’s claim that Anna during the security screening interview in June 2023 was not sincere but withheld information of importance for a correct security assessment, shall the following are taken into account. The Energy Agency believes that during the safety assessment they asked Anna the question if there was any involvement, membership, affiliation, association or sympathies with any organization, movement or the like. It’s a question so vague as to be irrelevant. All citizens who voted in a parliamentary election can be said to have sympathies with the party (organization) they voted for. All citizens who witness a sporting event or a cultural event are also included the definition. Anna does not remember being asked this very open-ended question by the Energy Agency means it was asked without there being additions with the implication that the question only concerned such as could conceivably affect her work. It cannot be expected that the interviewee will indicate on his own initiative which peaceful demonstrations he has proven or his personal political views (within the framework of parliamentary parties party program). This lacks relevance for the assessment to be made and is also in conflict with the basic freedoms and rights in the form of government and the European Convention.

Miscellaneous

We have not received the documents listed as appendices to the Energy Authority’s opinion and is therefore not affected in this submission.

Stockholm as above

Joakim Lindqvist

Appendices

1. Email correspondence

2. SMS from G.B. to Anna’s boss K.B.

29th of October 2024 there was a reply from the Chancellor of Justice: 

CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES WITH REFERENCE TO THE ENERGY AGENCY’S ACTION IN RELATION TO AN EMPLOYEE 

The Chancellor of Justice’s decision 

The Chancellor of Justice does not take any action due to the applicant’s application. 

The case 

The applicant has requested non-profit damages from the state of SEK 200,000. In support for her claim, she has stated, among other things, following. 

The state, through the Energy Agency, has violated her fundamental freedoms rights according to ch. 2 the form of government, the fundamentals of freedom of expression and a according to the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights terns and the fundamental freedoms (European Convention) by having took reprisals against her for using her freedom of expression, they freedom of demonstration and freedom of assembly. 

Her rights have in addition violated through incorrect and disproportionate application of security the Protection Act and in violation of the absolute prohibition in ch. 2 § 21 third me- ning and ch. 2 § 2 the form of government. The reprisals have consisted of her trial employment with the authority has ended and in a suspension from the work that did not have support law. 

The Swedish Energy Agency has commented on the claim. The applicant has commented the authority’s opinion. 

The Chancellor of Justice’s assessment 

Legal starting points 

The Ordinance (1995:1301) on handling claims for damages against the state (handling regulation) contains rules about which authority which shall handle such claims on behalf of the state. It follows from § 1 of the processing regulation that the regulation is not applicable on claims for compensation based on a government employment relationship. Such claims must instead be handled within the framework of the labor law system and then primarily according to the rules in the law (1974:371) on legal procedure in labor disputes (the Labor Disputes Act). By labor dispute is meant according to ch. 1. Section 1 first paragraph of the Labor Disputes Act, i.a. disputes concerning the relationship between employer and employee. 

Any dispute between an employer and an employee that has its basis in an ongoing or terminated employment shall be handled in accordance with the Labor Disputes Act. However, that condition applies that it is a dispute between employers goods and workers in this their capacity (see prop. 1974:77 p. 138 f.). 

The Labor Disputes Act is also applicable to disputes according to laws that do not contain makes any reference to the Labor Disputes Act, if the dispute is based on an employment relationship (see Karnov, the commentary to ch. 1 § 1 of the Labor Disputes Act, p. 1, JUNO 2024-10-14). 

The assessment in this case 

The applicant’s claim is based on a government employment relationship and thus sees issues that it is not up to the Chancellor of Justice to regulate. Yup- the Chancellor of the Exchequer therefore does not take any action in the matter. 

The matter has been preferred by Nedim Salcic.

On behalf of the Chancellor of Justice Anna Falk

This decision has been approved digitally and therefore lacks a signature.

Information about appeals, etc.

The Chancellor of Justice’s decision has been made in accordance with the provisions on the state’s voluntary deregulation contained in the regulation (1995:1301) on the handling of claims standing claim against the state. The decision cannot be appealed.

Reply from ST:

“We are surprised by the Chancellor of Justicie’s decision not to test how freedom of expression relates to the security clearance. There is no employment law way forward, as it was a trial employment that was terminated, which you can do without objective reasons.

In the worst case, JK’s decision could mean that there is a loop hole in the law – that a state employee cannot be tried if his freedom of expression has been violated by the state. It opens the door for the state to be able to arbitrarily get rid of employees, based on which policy governs Sweden at the moment. It creates uncertainty among our members and is a big step away from the system we have, where employees are judged based on their knowledge and skill.”