Background
Under Swedish law, every person has the right to access public documents held by government authorities, provided the information is not subject to secrecy. A document qualifies as a public document if it is held by an authority and has either been received by or drawn up at that authority.
AA submitted a request to the Parliamentary Administration (Riksdagsförvaltningen) seeking access to supporting materials and email correspondence relating to certain travels undertaken by the Speaker of the Riksdag. The Parliamentary Administration released some documents in response to his request.
On 3 March 2026, the Parliamentary Administration issued a decision rejecting AA’s request for additional documents concerning the Speaker’s travels. The stated reason was that the authority had already released all public documents matching the request and that no further public documents containing the requested information were held by the authority.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the appeal. The Court declined to order the Parliamentary Administration to submit observations in the case, finding no reason to do so.
The Court accepted the Parliamentary Administration’s representation that, beyond what had already been disclosed, no further public documents containing the requested information were held by the authority. The Court found no grounds to question that statement and accordingly upheld the original refusal.
Key Takeaways
- An authority’s uncontested assertion that it holds no further responsive public documents is sufficient to defeat a freedom-of-information appeal, even where media reports suggest additional documents may exist.
- The Supreme Administrative Court may decline to solicit observations from the respondent authority where it considers this unnecessary — the request for such an order is not automatic.
- The right of public access under Swedish law extends only to documents actually held by the authority; it does not compel an authority to locate or create documents it does not possess.
Why It Matters
This decision illustrates the practical limits of Sweden’s constitutionally protected principle of public access to official documents (offentlighetsprincipen). While the right is broad, it depends entirely on whether responsive documents are in the authority’s possession. Courts will generally accept an authority’s declaration that no further documents exist, placing the burden on the requester to produce concrete evidence to the contrary — media speculation alone is insufficient to dislodge that finding.
The case also confirms that the Supreme Administrative Court retains discretion over procedural steps such as requiring submissions from respondent authorities, and will not take those steps where the existing record is considered adequate to resolve the appeal.