Case No. 13/03239 There had to be something wrong with the police measuring equipment, said a man who had been pulled over for speeding. The case was brought before the district court, where he was found guilty. He then petitioned the Appeals Permission Board for permission to have the case brought before the High Court, but was refused. Case No. 12/05051 A man in the Faroe Islands complained because he had not received a reply from the Administrative Officer (Chief of Police) in the Faroe Islands to a number of requests for access to, among other things, police reports and information preferred to the police. The Administrative Officer has the same powers as the Danish police commissioners. On behalf of the complainant, the Ombudsman asked the Administrative Officer to prioritise the complaint, but a couple of months later, the man contacted the Ombudsman again because he still had had no reply. One of the Ombudsman’s case officers now telephoned the Administrative Officer and was told that the Administrative Officer expected to reply to the complainant within a month. The Ombudsman informed the complainant of this and advised him at the same time that – if the case still dragged on – he could ask the Director of Public Prosecutions for help concerning his complaint about the case processing time of the Administrative Officer. The complainant later received a decision from the Administrative Officer granting him partial access, and the Administrative Officer also expressed his regrets about the long case processing time. The Ombudsman’s jurisdiction extends to those matters pertaining to the Faroe Islands which fall under national authorities, meaning central authorities of the Realm. Authorities under the Faroese Home Rule are subject to the jurisdiction of the Faroese Parliamentary Ombudsman. The man complained to the Ombudsman about the police fine, the district court’s handling of his case and the refusal by the Appeals Permission Board, but the Ombudsman had to reject his complaint. According to the Ombudsman Act, the Ombudsman can consider neither complaints about matters that have been decided in a court of law, nor complaints about courts of law or court-like bodies, such as the Appeals Permission Board. In 2013, the Ombudsman rejected a total of more than 400 complaints which fell outside his jurisdiction – for instance because they concerned courts of law. Case No. 13/05268 ‘She rarely seems happy and is often sullen and withdrawn’. These were some of the things that were mentioned regarding a pupil in a report which a school sent to the municipality. The girl’s father found that the school’s concern was baseless and that the report was not sufficiently substantiated. He therefore complained to the Ombudsman. However, the Ombudsman rejected the case on the grounds that he considered it unlikely that he would be able to criticise the school. The Ombudsman wrote to the father, among other things, that public servants have an increased duty to notify the municipality of, for example, children who need special support. Concerning the content of the report, the Ombudsman wrote that he had no possibility of checking whether the school’s observations were correct, and nor could he make any evaluation of the school’s professional assessment. The Ombudsman is appointed by Parliament to consider legal issues. He cannot, however, consider issues which require other expert knowledge, such as the expertise to be able to assess whether a child is thriving and coping well in school. 21