144 ANNUAL REPORT 2015 rules which had been issued under the authority of the Executive Order on Study and House Rules for Upper Secondary Schools. In the case in question, the Ministry had expressed the opinion that a school principal could employ sanctions beyond the forms of sanction mentioned in the study and house rules. When asking the Ministry for a statement, the Ombudsman pointed out that it is usually presumed that a more stringent legal authority is required in the case of intrusive decisions. Furthermore, the Ombudsman was of the opinion that the list of possible forms of sanction in the Executive Order on study and house rules appeared exhaustive according to its wording. After reconsidering the case, the Ministry of Education concurred with the Ombudsman that a school principal cannot employ sanctions not mentioned in the Executive Order on study and house rules against a student who has broken those rules. Subsequently, the Ombudsman did not have grounds for taking further action. He did, however, find occasion for commenting that the use of specific forms of sanction does not only require legal authority in the Executive Order on study and house rules but also requires that the forms of sanction be implemented in the locally established study and house rules. In addition, the case gave the Ombudsman occasion to make some general comments on the question regarding suspension of the appeal deadline in the case of insufficient guidance on appeal. 2015-34. Unclear legislation regarding special nursery schools A municipality converted a special nursery school from a special day-care facility for children according to the Social Services Act to a facility according to the Day-Care Facilities Act. In overall terms, the conversion did not affect the care and treatment of the children but it did, among other things, mean the introduction of the same self-payment as in the municipality’s other day-care facilities. The central theme in the case was the distinction between section 32 of the Social Services Act regarding special day-care facilities and section 4 of the Day-Care Facilities Act regarding general day-care facilities. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the relevant legislation was unclear. In his assessment, based purely on the wording of the relevant provisions in the Social Services Act and the Day-Care Facilities Act, the legislation did on the face of it allow such a conversion. However, it was also the Ombudsman’s view that the explanatory notes to the provisions made it seem unlikely that the legislation