2014 AT THE OMBUDSMAN INSTITUTION in this Annual Report, Senior Head of Division Kirsten Talevski also describes various ‘smart’ ways of resolving cases. We also try to be very mindful of when cases can be discussed with the authorities directly responsible ‒ for example the relevant municipality ‒ and when they should be raised to a high level. In the 2012 Annual Report, for example, we described how the Use of Force Committee under the Ministry of Children, Gender Equality, Integration and Social Affairs was set up because we raised a number of specific questions on the use of force towards children and young people, not with the individual residential institutions, etc. but with the relevant interdisciplinary ministry. There was a corresponding example in 2014 when we contacted the Ministry of Finance (and the Ministry of Justice) and raised the very significant problem that public IT systems are often not designed to take account of basic administrative law requirements. This not only contravenes the legislation but is also a serious problem in terms of legal protection. The Ministry of Finance took this very seriously, and a number of measures have now been implemented to prevent these problems (Annual Report 2014, Case No. 2014-34). THREE HIGH-PROFILE CASES One thing is what we in our institution see as having taken up space in the report year. Another thing is what has drawn particular public attention. One case which received considerable press coverage was the so-called Adam Holm case (Annual Report 2014, Case No. 2014-12). The case concerned freedom of speech for employees at the Danish Broadcasting Corporation (DR). In his private capacity, a DR TV programme presenter, Adam Holm, wrote a feature article in a daily newspaper, Politiken. In the article, he made very negative comments on religion and religious people with basis in the tragic death of a young acquaintance. DR got it all wrong from the start in this case. Adam Holm was reprimanded and told at the same time that in future he would need permission from DR if he wanted to express his personal opinions in public. Both reactions were unlawful, and the latter was even in the nature of unconstitutional censorship. We expressed our sharp criticism of DR’s actions, and DR had withdrawn both reactions even before our criticism. 11