8 ANNUAL REPORT 2017 In my opinion, the central themes in most Ombudsman cases have to be questions such as these: Has something gone wrong in the case? If yes, what is it? The case processing? The interpretation of the law? The case processing time? Is it a single slip-up or a systemic error? And most importantly: How can it be corrected, specifically and generally? Is it necessary or appropriate also to ‘grade’ the public authority? In my opinion, quite often not. Firstly, the idea of ‘grading’ is probably not very well designed to regulate beha­v­ iour generally. Danish public authorities are not primarily motivated by a fear of being told off by the Ombudsman. They are motivated by a desire to do their job right. Secondly, in a number of instances it would be unfair towards the public au­ thorities. Many cases involve, for instance, debatable questions of interpretation, and sometimes the Ombudsman has to enforce his conception of the law even though the view of public authorities may also have its merits. In those instances, it would be disproportionate for public authorities also to receive actual criticism. Thirdly – and not least – as Ombudsman one must be careful that the criticism does not become subject to inflation because it is very important that criticism will be felt and registered in those instances when there is real cause for the criticism – also out of regard for the feeling of redress on the part of affected citizens. In my opinion, the Ombudsman institution consequently serves itself best by showing judiciousness in its rhetoric1. If you look through the Ombudsman cases from 2017 which have been published in Danish on www.ombudsmanden.dk (for summaries in English see pages 81-117) and on www.retsinformation.dk (the official legal information system of the Danish State), you will therefore see a broad cross-section – both with regard to public authorities, themes and degree of criticism. 1) It is important to stress that the above specifically concerns the rhetoric used towards public authorities and not how often the Ombudsman, for instance, disagrees with an authority and recommends that a case be reopened, or the like. On this issue, please see page 135.