Summaries of selected statements | 63 it is compulsory or optional to use a digital self-service solution. Further, the municipality’s digital self-service solution was not designed to make it possible to submit applications on behalf of others, and the Ombudsman stated that the municipality had not ensured that express guidance was provided on its website on the option of exemption from using the compulsory digital self-service solution for applications for technical aids and on how to apply for exemption. It should also be ensured that guidance on this was provided on www.borger.dk. Finally, guidance should be given that persons applying for consumer durables or layout or interior design work on behalf of others may do so without using the municipality’s digital self-service solution. The municipality and the then Ministry for Children and Social Affairs both replied to the Ombudsman that they would take initiatives to ensure clearer guidance about the digital self-service solution. The Ministry further informed the Ombudsman that it would initiate a dialogue among the relevant authorities in order to ensure coherent, user-friendly guidance across the relevant pages on www.borger.dk where different authorities are responsible for the content. The Ombudsman recommended to the Ministry that, in that connection, clarity be ensured in the respects mentioned in his report. 2019-13. Municipality’s observance of rules on disqualification in case about mayor’s relations with privately owned enterprise The Ombudsman opened an investigation on his own initiative with a municipality about its observance of the rules on disqualification. The Ombudsman made the decision to open the investigation following media reports that the then Mayor for Employment and Integration had been allowed by a privately owned enterprise – with which the Employment and Integration Administration collaborated on, among other things, apprenticeships for socially vulnerable young people – to use a room at the company’s premises free of charge for a birthday party. Based on an overall assessment, the Ombudsman agreed with the municipality that there was not a friendship between the Mayor and the manager of the company of a nature resulting in disqualification under section 3(1) paragraph (5) of the Public Administration Act. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the loan of the room for the Mayor’s birthday party was to be regarded as a gift, which the Mayor should not have accepted. The question whether the Mayor’s acceptance of this gift resulted in disqualification was open to some doubt, but overall the Ombudsman was of the opinion that the Mayor was disqualified under section 3(1) paragraph (5) of the Public Administration Act in relation to any case concerning the company and its manager. The Ombudsman stated that, based on the available information, the Mayor had not in any way participated in the processing by the Employment and Integration Administration of any specific cases about placement of unemployed people in apprenticeships with the company. Even for that reason alone, he found that the processing by the Employment and Integration Administration of the cases was not flawed as a result of the Mayor being disqualified. In addition, the Ombudsman found that the Mayor’s interest was not of such a nature that it might result in the employees of the Employment and Integration Administration also being disqualified. However, as a result of her being disqualified, the Mayor should not have taken part in the decision to award the company a business prize – but the Ombudsman found no basis for recommending that the case be reopened.