54 ANNUAL REPORT 2015 In September 2015, the Ministry of Immigration, Integration and Housing and the Immigration Service placed an advertisement in Lebanese newspapers. The advertisement contained a number of brief particulars on restrictive parts of the Danish asylum system, among other things on the postponed right to family reunification and fast repatriation of rejected asylum seekers. The purpose was to correct false information in the refugee community. COURSE OF EVENTS IN THE ADVERTISEMENT CASE 7 September 2015: The Ministry of Immigration, Integration and Housing and the Immigration Service place a brief advertisement in four Lebanese newspapers regarding parts of the Danish asylum system. The authorities also publish the advertisement in, among other places, social media in the Lebanon and at asylum centres in Denmark. 18 September 2015: The Ombudsman takes up the case. He chooses to focus on the newspaper advertisement, which is the basis of the information drive. 2 and 23 October 2015: The Ministry gives a statement in reply to the Ombudsman’s request for comments. 10 December 2015: The Ombudsman publishes his statement with the criticism that the advertisement did not give ‘a true and fair view’. 10 December 2015: The Minister and the Ministry release a press statement in which they declare that they disagree with the Ombudsman. 17 December 2015: The Ministry gives additional comments to the Ombudsman’s statement. The Ministry states, among other things, that target groups and precision in communication will be kept in mind in future information drives. 18 December 2015: The Ombudsman declares himself satisfied with the outcome of the case. I stated that the advertisement must be judged according to the rules and principles that apply to public authorities’ guidance of citizens on their legal status, and that the conditions for Syrian refugees had to influence the judgment to a significant degree. I concluded that the advertisement did not give a true and fair view. The Ministry assessed the advertisement differently but has subsequently made a statement which should imply that the problem will at any rate not repeat itself. This case was also haunted by the issue of ‘political communication’. To me, the Ministry used expressions such as ‘communication of political initiatives’ about the advertisement and referred to the rules that apply to ministers’ replies to questions from Parliament according to the Ministry of Finance’s so-called Codex VII. However, as Ombudsman I had to judge the advertisement on its own grounds, meaning as official dissemination of information. A TECHNICAL FORMULA FOR A SOCIETAL PRINCIPLE The Eritrea case and the advertisement case illustrate each in its own way the problematic issue of ministers’ political communication and its scope. Ministers need to be able to participate in political communication, probably more today than ever before. It is important to understand and recognise this. But their role and responsibility as heads of administration set boundaries for what they can communicate. They need to know which hat they are wearing.