62 | Annual Report 2019 Municipal and regional authorities etc. The following statements on cases concluded in 2019 have been published: 2019-2. Talks with employees of municipality not conducted in a manner respecting their freedom of expression A number of employees of a municipality were summoned to talks with their managements because they had publicly expressed their views about the municipality’s decision to move a special school or about healthcare cuts. The Ombudsman noted that four employees had been summoned to talks despite the fact that their statements were within the limits to the freedom of expression of public employees. According to the municipality, the talks were not disciplinary hearings. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the employees could justifiably have got the impression that they were negative reactions to their statements. Thus, it was stated or implied during the talks that the employees had acted in contravention of, among other things, the municipality’s communication policy, and several of the employees apologised for and expressed their regret about their statements during the talks. On that basis, the Ombudsman was of the opinion that the talks were not conducted in a manner which respected – and recognised – the employees’ freedom of expression. A fifth employee was given a written warning following a disciplinary hearing. However, the Ombudsman concluded that the grounds given by the municipality were not sufficient for issuing a written warning. He did not examine whether the municipality could have taken disciplinary measures against the employee on different grounds. All five cases thus illustrate problems of which authorities must be aware when considering responding towards employees who have expressed their views in public. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the course of events – including the number of employees who were summoned to talks – was also liable to cause more general uncertainty among employees of the municipality about their right to express their views in public. In conclusion, the Ombudsman found that the way in which the municipality had handled the five cases was overall a matter for severe criticism. The Ombudsman noted information from the municipality that there was agreement in the municipality’s general consultation committee to intensify the municipality’s information efforts as regards its communication policy and that guidance notes were being prepared. 2019-11. Municipality’s digital self-service solution did not comply with certain requirements of administrative law A complaint from a citizen caused the Ombudsman to open a general investigation of a municipality’s digital self-service solution for applications for technical aids, consumer durables and layout and interior design work for persons with permanent functional impairment. In the Ombudsman’s opinion it was unfortunate that it was not expressly stated on the municipality’s website and on www.borger.dk3 that it is only compulsory to use the digital self-service solution for applications for technical aids (such as arm or leg prostheses or orthopaedic shoes). The Ombudsman stated that it is important that authorities are aware, for instance when publishing information for citizens on their websites, whether 3) A common public-sector portal providing a single point of access to the authorities’ digital self-service solutions and information about public authorities and services