12 | Annual Report 2019 The man protested against SKAT’s suggestion, and then the caseworker at SKAT wrote to the man: ‘I think I have treated you well by not cutting into the maintenance expenses. We may discuss whether it is a fair part of the sewer expenses I have accepted.’ So, it would appear as if the caseworker at SKAT did not make a decision but entered into a negotiation with the citizen where the caseworker would meet the citizen halfway in some areas if he in return yielded in other areas. The Ombudsman stated that SKAT’s e-mail could give the taxpayer a problematic impression of SKAT’s processing of the case, thereby damaging the trust in SKAT. The Ombudsman also stated: ‘Tax authorities’ task is to administer the legislation which applies to taxation matters. By handling this task, the authorities must maintain citizens’ trust that the authorities abide by the legislative framework. This trust is not maintained if the authorities give the taxpayer the impression that a decision regulated by law – for instance a tax assessment – is a matter of negotiation with SKAT.’ In this case, the actual statement is directed at the authorities but the considerations apply in relation to all authorities making decisions within the meaning of the law. The cases mentioned are examples of what can happen when authorities get their roles as decision-making authority and negotiating party mixed up. The decisions do not appear as clear statements from the authority as to what is applicable law for the individual citizen. On the contrary, there is a risk that the citizen receives a decision with, for example, requirements and conditions which the authority is not allowed at all to stipulate. Therefore, one is easily left with the impression that the decision is not based on statutory rules and factual assessments but instead is an expression of the individual caseworker’s (good)will. ‘Just’ a decision or a decision within the meaning of the law Confusion about roles does not only take place between decision-making activities and situations involving negotiations. When authorities engage in what is called actual administrative activity, they make several decisions every day. But sometimes it can be hard to distinguish between whether a decision is ‘just’ a decision or a decision within the meaning of the law. Among other things, this applies to schools, daycare institutions and other places where actual decision-making only rarely takes place. One example is a case (Case No. 2015-19) where a boy in the 9th grade had grossly harassed a girl in the 8th grade. The boy had also been involved in previous incidents at the school. Therefore, the school decided to transfer the boy to another school. The school had made a decision within the meaning of the Public Administration Act by unilaterally and finally determining that the boy was to continue his schooling at a different school. But the school itself was not aware that it was making a decision within the meaning of the Act. That it was a decision within the meaning of the Act meant that the rules of the Public Administration Act applied and that the school ought to have consulted the boy’s legal guardian prior to the decision. The school also ought to have given adequate grounds for the decision and