SUMMARIES OF SELECTED STATEMENTS In this connection, the Ombudsman was also informed that the municipality’s HR and payroll department handles personnel administration tasks in relation to employees of the harbour. The Ombudsman stated that a municipally owned self-governing harbour is not to be regarded as part of the municipal administration but as a separate authority. For this reason, the municipality was to be considered a ‘third party’ within the meaning of section 23(1) paragraph (1) in relation to the harbour. In reaching this conclusion, the Ombudsman gave weight to the facts, among others, that the legal basis for municipally owned self-governing harbours is the Act on Harbours, not the Local Government Act, and that a self-governing harbour is free to exercise control over its plant and equipment within the overall financial framework set by the municipal council. In addition, the Ombudsman was of the opinion that the report was to be regarded as having been made available to the municipality on its receipt by the municipality. In this connection, the Ombudsman took into account that personnel files of staff of the harbour – and thus the documents registered in the personnel files – are in practice accessible to staff of the municipality. On that basis, the Ombudsman recommended that the harbour reconsider the right of access to the report. The harbour reconsidered the case and made a decision to release the report. 2017-27. No authority for secure institution to check residents’ mail In connection with a monitoring visit to a secure institution, the Ombudsman was informed that the institution checked the mail received by the residents. In addition, the house rules stated that mail was to be opened in the presence of staff. In a statement on the matter, the Ombudsman examined the legal basis for when authorities are permitted to use measures of this nature. The Ombudsman agreed with the authorities that the Social Services Act did not authorise checks of residents’ mail. In addition, the Ombudsman was of the opinion that, contrary to what the authorities had stated, there was not sufficient authority for the regime under the principle of implied powers (a Danish principle that a public institution may to a certain degree establish such rules and make such decisions as are necessary for the overall functioning of the institution). Further, because the regime could not be considered to be sufficiently 115