98 Case No. 13/02938 Case No. 13/00255 A foreign national did not speak Danish and therefore complained to the Ombudsman in English: He had been an inmate in a Danish prison and had asked in vain for an English translation of the rules for release on parole, both from the prison and from the Department of Prisons and Probation. The Ombudsman wrote to the Department of Prisons and Probation and received a reply immediately. The Department could not see that it had received any enquiries from the man about the rules for release on parole, but an English version would now be sent to him. When the Ombudsman had received a copy of the Department’s letter with the translation, he wrote to the man – in English – that he would now take no further action in the case. In 2013, the Ombudsman received approximately 13,000 letters and e-mails – the vast majority in Danish. Case No. 13/02812 May the chimney sweep clean people’s chimneys without notice when they are not at home? A man was of the opinion that pursuant to the Due Process of Law Act, he was to have at least 14 days’ notice, and he complained to the Ombudsman because the chimney sweep came unannounced. The Ombudsman forwarded the complaint to the Danish Energy Agency. While the Agency was working on its reply to the complainant, it came to the Agency’s attention that the executive order on chimney sweeps contained provisions which might give the impression that chimney sweeps carried out regulatory tasks. The Agency would therefore set up a working group to look at the chimney sweep system. Thus, the man’s complaint to the Ombudsman caused the authorities to take a closer look at the rules pertaining to chimney sweeping. Sometimes, a citizen’s complaint to the Ombudsman may serve to draw a public authority’s attention to fundamental problems with regard to the authority’s practices or the rules according to which it operates. Case No. 13/02938 A small grassy area on the bank of an inlet had been used for years by the members of a boating guild for parking and for laying up boats. But in connection with a property boundary assessment, the majority of the area was conferred on the adjoining site, which was owned by a private person. However, the boating guild was of the opinion that the members of the guild had acquired a prescriptive right by using the site through many years and that, consequently, the boating guild ought to have the right to continued access to it. The property boundary assessment was approved by the Danish Geodata Agency in 2009, and the boating guild received the last refusal to reopen the case in 2011. As the Ombudsman received the boating guild’s complaint in 2013, he had to reject it because the guild had exceeded the Ombudsman’s one-year deadline for lodging a complaint. Citizens who wish to complain to the Ombudsman must do so within a year of the decision or event which is the cause of the complaint. In 2013, the Ombudsman had to reject 162 complaints because they were lodged too late.   Case No. 13/01800 Three ministries rejected an attorney’s request for access to a number of documents in a case of grievous bodily harm resulting in death. The attorney complained to the Ombudsman and wrote, among other things, that he had not had the opportunity to inform the ministries, before the decisions were made, of the considerations which favoured the granting of access. The Ombudsman replied that he would not investigate the case before the authorities had taken a position on the attorney’s arguments. The Ombudsman cannot investigate a complaint if the channels of administrative appeal have not been exhausted. Therefore, it is the Ombudsman’s practice not to investigate a case until the authorities have had the opportunity to consider the issue which the complainant wishes the Ombudsman to comment on.