GIVING ERRONEOUS GUIDANCE TO CITIZENS HAS CONSEQUENCES It is true that the Immigration Service did not have a duty to give detailed guidance on the Act on an Active Social Policy as that Act did not belong under the Immigration Service. But the Immigration Service should have given a conditional reply to the man and referred him to, for instance, his municipality regarding the rules governing cash benefit. (Case No. 2017-30). What might the consequence be of such mistakes? There may of course be criticism from the Ombudsman. In addition, the authority may in special instances impose disciplinary sanctions on the employee committing the error. And if the citizen has suffered a financial loss, liability for damages may become relevant, depending on the circumstances. But in the case involving the Immigration Service, the man was understandably first and foremost just concerned about getting his residence permit of indefinite duration. He would like to be able to stay permanently in Denmark. ‘REDRESS OF THE ADVERSE EFFECTS OF GUIDANCE ERRORS’ How should such an issue be assessed? On the one hand, you might say that it is of course regrettable that the Immi­ gration Service gave erroneous guidance to the man. But the law is the law, and the fact that his partner received cash benefit triggered public welfare payments to the man. And according to the rules this meant that the man could not get a residence permit of indefinite duration. An error of guidance cannot change that. On the other hand, you might also take the view that if the Immigration Service had guided the man correctly, the couple would probably have made adjustments accordingly and for instance had the woman’s cash benefit stopped. Then the man could have had his residence permit of indefinite duration. In that situation, is it not reasonable that the Immigration Service carries the risk of its own errors and gives the man his permit? This issue is often referred to a bit technically as a question of ‘redress of the adverse effects of guidance errors’. Should the matter between citizen and authority be ‘redressed’ so that the citizen is put in the same position as if the authorities had given correct guidance (and the citizen had acted in accordance with the guidance)? 25