88 | Annual Report 2018 The other question was whether the foundation was subject to the provision in section 4(1) of the Access to Public Administration Files Act, which states that the Act is applicable to all activities carried out by companies etc. which are more than 75 per cent owned by Danish public authorities, with the exception of companies listed on a stock exchange and subsidia­ ries of listed companies. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the foundation was subject to neither section 3(1) paragraph (2) nor section 4(1) of the Access to Public Administration Files Act. On that basis, the foundation thus did not fall within the scope of the Act. 2018-23. Municipality’s decision not to take part in television programmes during election campaign did not restrict employees’ freedom of expression A municipal chief executive informed the municipal council and the executive board that the municipality did not wish to take part in television programmes in connection with the municipal elections in November 2017. The decision was not communicated to the employees of the municipality, either verbally or in writing. Instead, the employees learned about the decision from press coverage. The press coverage gave the impression, among other things, that the employees ‘had been gagged’ and that the municipality had refused the press access to its workplaces. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the municipality’s decision did not restrict its employees’ right to express their views in a private capacity. Thus, they could still express their views in a private capacity within the limits described in the guidance notes on public employees’ freedom of expression issued by the Ministry of Justice. However, the Ombudsman stated that the press coverage might have caused uncertainty among employees of the municipality about their right to express their views. In the Ombudsman’s opinion it would therefore have been most appropriate if the municipality had taken steps immediately following the press coverage to actively inform its employees about their right to express their views in a private capacity. The municipality stated to the Ombudsman that it was very regrettable if some employees were or had been in doubt about the scope of their freedom of expression. After being contacted by the Ombudsman, the municipality had sent a newsletter to all its employees informing them about the freedom of expression which they had as public employees. In addition, the issue of freedom of expression was discussed at a meeting of the municipality’s top committee on contributory influence and co-determination. On that basis, the Ombudsman took no further action on the matter. 2018-26. Boy in care outside his home subjected to illegal monitoring by accommodation facility and municipality An accommodation facility had, among other things, taken screenshots of the mobile phone of a boy placed in the facility and written down his conversations with his former foster family. The facility had subsequently forwarded the information to the municipality responsible for the placement. The Ombudsman stated that the boy’s communication had been monitored – and that in his opinion it had been monitored illegally because no decision had been made by the municipality’s committee for children and young people that the boy’s communication was to be monitored. In addition, the Ombudsman stated that the municipality had had a very significant role in the matter and had in his opinion contributed to a high degree to the boy’s communication being monitored by the accommodation facility.