Daniel Toborg Rescue specialist Næstved, Zealand 150 CASE NO. 16/05597 CASE NO. 17/03703 It was not clear where the Ombudsman came into the picture when a man sent in a pile of documents with many handwritten notes but without any specific complaint. Some of the documents concerned a com­ plaint about the police which the Ombudsman had previously declined to investigate. Others apparently concerned a disagreement with a finance company. A forced deportation of a foreign national was abort­ ed when the flight’s captain refused the transport of the foreign national. The reason was that the for­ eign national resisted violently when he was about to board the plane and three police officers had to carry him by force to the entrance to the plane. A monitor­ ing officer from the Ombudsman office was present and observed the police officers’ work. In a letter, the Ombudsman asked the man to speci­ fy what he wished to complain about and gave him a deadline of four weeks to reply. When the four weeks had passed without any reply from the man, the Om­ budsman wrote to him that he did not intend to take any further action in the matter. In 2017, the Ombudsman closed 192 cases because it was not possible to clarify what the citizen wished to complain about or because the complaint was withdrawn. CASE NO. 17/02496 A municipality complained about the time it took SKAT (the Danish Customs and Tax Administration) to answer a number of questions on settlement of an estate duty to the municipality. The municipality stated that it needed the answers to be able to calculate the amount it would claim from SKAT in a court case. The Ombudsman declined to investigate the case be­ cause it was a complaint from one public authority about another public authority. In practice, it is considered a principal task for the Ombudsman to investigate conflicts between pub­ lic administration and citizens. The authorities must solve conflicts between themselves in other ways than by complaining to the Ombudsman, for instance by negotiation. On the basis of the monitoring officer’s observations and after receiving the police report on the aborted deportation, the Ombudsman closed the case with­ out criticism of the police. The Ombudsman monitors that the forced returns of foreign nationals effected by the police take place with respect for the individual and without undue use of force. This means, among other things, that staff from the Ombudsman’s office participate in a small number of forced returns effected by the po­ lice. In 2017, three of a total of 10 returns in which staff from the Ombudsman office participated were aborted. CASE NO. 17/01119 A mother and father had been refused reimbursement of extra costs for a special club facility for their 17-yearold disabled daughter. The parents wrote in a com­ plaint to the Ombudsman that they had actually appealed against a refusal of a special educational club facility for the daughter which they believed that the municipality had a duty to make available for disabled young people according to the Act on Social Services. The Ombudsman forwarded the parents’ complaint to the National Social Appeals Board so that the Board could consider the case again. The Board reopened the case and pointed out that the Board had not con­ sidered the case according to all relevant provisions. Sometimes, the Ombudsman can help a case along simply by throwing light on a misunderstanding.