SUMMARIES OF SELECTED STATEMENTS The Ombudsman noted that ‒ with the concurrence of the Ministry of Finance ‒ the Agency for Digitisation is going to take measures so that the actual options conform to the provision in section 8. The Agency had stated that it is going to take steps to increase the receiving capacity and have the law amended. 2015-22. Public Digital Post must be configured in accordance with general administrative law requirements A university researcher who had co-written three reports on the digital mail solution Public Digital Post contacted the Ombudsman, and on that basis the Ombudsman took up a case on his own initiative with the responsible authorities: the Agency for Digitisation and the Ministry of Finance. The Ombudsman found that Public Digital Post was configured in such a way that it was not always possible to see which authority had sent a letter. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it would have been advisable if ‒ before it became obligatory for citizens to use the digital mail solution ‒ the authorities had ensured that the mail solution had been configured in such a way that it supported compliance with the basic requirement of administrative law that a message from a public authority must show the correct identity of the sender. The investigation also showed that some public authorities were listed by the wrong name in the address book of Public Digital Post, for example by a previous name. However, as the Agency for Digitisation informed the Ombudsman that the Agency now checked every quarter whether the authorities could actually be contacted and whether they were listed under their correct name in the address book, the Ombudsman took no further action in relation to this matter. Finally, the Ombudsman examined whether it was contrary to the Public Digital Post Act that ‒ besides Public Digital Post ‒ some municipalities had established a local digital mail solution which they used for communication with their citizens. He did not find that this was the case. However, the municipalities in question were obligated to provide clear guidance for their citizens on the consequences of accepting to receive public communications via a local digital mail solution, including that it did not free the citizens from checking their Public Digital Post inbox. As the Agency for Digitisation stated that the Agency would now implement a general guidance effort with a view to ensuring that authorities using a local digital mail solution provide citizens with the necessary guidance, the Ombudsman took no further action regarding this issue. 129