22 | Annual Report 2018 Authorities escape criticism So we at the Ombudsman institution focus our efforts on putting the authorities on the right track when asking for statements – and in some instances this can mean that the cases are closed without a final statement containing criticism from the Ombudsman. This approach may cause surprise. For is the Ombudsman not letting the authorities escape too easily? They have, after all, made an error but they are not criticised for it. For instance, should not the Fund for Better Working Environment and Labour Retention have been criticised when the Fund erroneously used the rule on ministerial advice and assist­ ance? Or should not SKAT have been criticised when a registration error initially prevented a housing association from gaining a tax reduction? And had not the Tax Appeals Agency deserved the Ombudsman’s rebuke when the Agency refused to give the lawyer an advance assurance to reopen the case? You can say that in all three instances, the authority initially committed an error which was not corrected until after we asked the authority for a statement. The direct answer to that question is that it is not in itself a goal for the Ombudsman to utter criticism but rather that the citizen’s problem is solved. And that the authority does not repeat the error. But of course, cases do regularly crop up with such important errors that the Ombudsman chooses to conclude the case with a statement and criticism. Even though the authority acknowledges and corrects errors. When the Ombudsman chooses to express criticism in these cases, it is both due to a regard for the citizens’ sense of justice but it is also a forward-looking attempt to warn the authorities against committing similar errors in the future. This happened, for instance, in a case where the Ministry of Higher Education and Science postponed the reply to a journalist’s request for access to a specific document until the Ministry had published the document in question. In reply to our enquiry for a statement regarding the time aspect of the case processing in relation to the Ministry’s reply to the request for access to files and the publication, the Ministry conceded that it was not relevant to the question of access to include the regard for the time of publication, and the Ministry expressed regret at the processing of the request for access. The Ombudsman gave a statement in the case in which he termed the Ministry’s case processing a matter for extreme criticism (Case No. 2018-17). However, as outlined above, there is a group of cases characterised by quick help to the citizen and the freeing of resources for both the Ombudsman and the authority – resources which can then be used on other cases – if the case in question is closed already on the basis of the Ombudsman’s enquiry for a statement.