94 Case No. 14/03892 A journalist complained to the Ombudsman about a partial refusal to access from the Fund for Better Working Environment and Labour Retention. The Fund refused access to some e-mails because they were part of the ministerial advice and assistance between the department and the subordinate authority (the Fund) and therefore could be exempted in accordance with the so-called regulation on ministerial advice and assistance in the Public Administration Files Act. When the journalist asked for complaint guidelines, the Fund at first wrote to him that he could complain to the Ministry of Employment but retracted that later on the grounds that the Fund was an independent body. In a hearing, the Ombudsman asked why the Fund had refused access to information pursuant to the regulation on ministerial advice and assistance about correspondence with a subordinate authority when the Fund at the same time claimed to be an independent body. By telephone, the Fund replied that they had decided to reopen the case. The result of the case was that the journalist was given full access to information. When the Ombudsman wishes to investigate a complaint further, he sends a hearing to the authority in question – typically including specific questions. In some cases, the Ombudsman’s questions make the authority reprocess the case. This happened 30 times in 2014. Case No. 14/02536 The risk of serious plane crashes due to collisions with barnacle geese and other large birds prompted a concerned citizen to complain to the Ombudsman. In the citizen’s opinion, the reaction of the authorities to the problem was irresponsible and their assessment of the risk was totally wrong. The citizen had previously been in contact with several authorities, among others the Danish Transport Authority. The Ombudsman thought that the Danish Transport Authority was better equipped to consider the issue of air travel safety and consequently decided that he would not investigate the case. The Ombudsman himself decides whether a complaint offers sufficient grounds for investigation. Case No. 14/03648 A citizen could not obtain his blue National Health Service medical card because he refused to set up NemId (the single login for public websites and services). In the municipality’s assessment, he was able to use the digital self-service solution and therefore was also obligated to do so. It was not a reason for exemption that the citizen on grounds of principle did not wish to use NemId. The Ombudsman could not criticise the municipality’s demand that the citizen apply digitally. The demand is warranted in the Danish Health Act: Only citizens whom the municipality assesses to be unable to use the digital self-service solution can be exempted from using it. The Ombudsman often processes cases involving administrative law requirements to IT solutions in the public sector. The experience in this field is summed up in a memo on www.ombudsmanden.dk and updated regularly. Case No. 14/00521 The owner of two small dogs got angry when a dog trainer’s big Rottweiler savaged her dogs. The police did not help the matter when they decided that the Rottweiler did not have to be put down. She complained to the National Police but her complaint was turned down because she was not a party to the case. The dog owner did not understand this and she then complained to the Ombudsman, who asked the National Police to take a position on the complaint. The National Police answered the dog owner that even though she was obviously interested in what happened to the Rottweiler, she was not a party to the case in a legal sense. That would require her having a significant and individual interest in the result of the case. The National Police did not believe this to be the case: Whatever happened to the Rottweiler had no greater impact on her situation than on any other citizen’s situation. Even if the Ombudsman does not investigate a case further as such, he may still be able to help the citizen get a more specific explanation of the authorities’ decisions.