Appendix 2. The process for accessing the documents relating to my case

In Sweden, we have a constitutionally protected right, including party transparency, to take part in prepared documents concerning ourselves. Normally, the processing should not take more than a few days. I share here the process to get access to the documents that form the basis of the decisions concerning me (since this information also has been requested).

April 16, 2024 I am requesting all documentation and other information related to the Security Protection Act that concerns me and that has been created, received or otherwise brought to the file at the Energy Agency. In the event that the authority considers that confidentiality legislation or other statutes prevent me from taking part in this, I request a written decision with justification and appeal reference.

On April 18, I received some of that information by e-mail and soon after, the authority sends some background information by registered mail, but it is not complete. In principle, it only applies to the registry checks that have been carried out (and which have not shown any previous remarks). I advise again that if I do not get access to the information, I want to appeal against that decision.

April 24 I clarify my previous request and ask for the meeting minutes from the development conversation I had with my boss a few days before my contract was terminated, and I get a reply shortly after that no notes from that meeting have been taken.

May 3 I am again asking for documentation and other information related to the Security Protection Act that concerns me, and I inform them that I still have not seen any decisions or reasons for the decisions made in my case. I have neither seen the documentation from the security talks that took place in June 2023, on the 2nd (on the phone with my unit manager) nor on April 4, 2024. Nor have I received any feedback on my request for several of the documents that concern me, e.g. . the text messages that were sent about me to my superiors and other staff at the authority at the beginning of April. I also clarify that I want my phone log from my last week as an employee as well as the SMS I received from Boethius on April 1st. Finally, I make it clear again that if the authority refuses to give me access to these documents, I will want to appeal against that decision.

May 7th I get an email saying “as any issue of confidentiality has not been raised there has also been no reason to consider your request under the right of access”.

I am told that there are meeting notes from my first security briefings before I started my employment, but that “this document is not a public document in the sense of the Freedom of the Press Ordinance. It also states that if I believe that the authority’s assessment is incorrect, I have the right to request an appealable decision about the authority’s position, which of course I want. Regarding the communication to and from Gustav Boethius, it is claimed that there is no documentation available. As for my old phone log, it is suddenly claimed that they do not have access to it, but that it is with the telecom operator.

May 14 – I write that the text messages that Boethius has sent to the authority regarding me and my phone log are public documents (Chapter 2 § 6 of the Freedom of the Press Ordinance). The SMS has also formed the basis of the renewed security protection check that I went through. My security interviews have also served as a basis for decisions. I give this and other reasons that the records are public information and I say again that I would like to appeal their decision.

May 17 – I finally get the decision (no. 2024-6265) which says, for example; * The text messages received from Boethius have been deleted from everyone’s phones. * The phone log has been removed. * The meeting minutes from the completed security checks have neither been used nor archived, which is why they are not a public document. 21 May I am appealing the decision

May 28 I receive a copy of the meeting notes from the final security clearance call that took place on April 8, that is one of the requested documents.

28 May Appeals to the Jönköping District Court against my right to access the remaining documents as a public document. I was told in another context that one of Boethius’ original text messages is still registered (which I had not received information about before). I request this and it arrived on 2nd September 2024, ie 4.5 months after I first requested it.

October 30 I get access to the meeting notes from the first security clearence.