63 Case No. 14/02038 The media were buzzing with rumours that the Prime Minister was among the candidates for one of the most senior posts in the EU, but when a journalist requested access to any files in the Prime Minister’s Office on the subject, the ministry would not disclose whether such documents existed. The Ombudsman refused to investigate the journalist’s complaint about the decision: The Prime Minister’s Office was entitled to keep information secret in order to protect Denmark’s interests relating to foreign politics. Besides, it was also okay to keep it a secret whether documents relating to a certain topic exist: In this case, a confirmation of the existence of the documents could be perceived as an actual confirmation that the Prime Minister was a candidate for the job, whereas a denial would imply that if the ministry in later cases did not deny – but instead by way of example declined to confirm or deny – the existence of such documents, this would be perceived as an actual confirmation. In 2014, the Ministry of Justice launched the website www.offentlighedsportalen.dk – a webbased portal which, among other things, gives access to some of the Ombudsman’s statements on the Danish Access to Public Administration Files Act in anonymous form, including the statement in this case. Case No. 14/02557 When staff members from the Ombudsman’s Monitoring Department were being showed around in a closed psychiatric unit, a patient handed them a letter and asked the Ombudsman to treat it as a complaint. In the letter the patient complained, among other things, that she had been admitted against her will. After the monitoring visit, the Ombudsman wrote to the patient that she should lodge a complaint with the Psychiatric Patients’ Complaints Board first. She could, if needed, bring the Complaints Board’s decision on compulsory admission before the courts. The Ombudsman also wrote to her that in accordance with standard practice the Ombudsman does not process complaints where, as in this case, there is easy access to bring the case before the courts. Before the Ombudsman’s monitoring staff visit an institution, the users at the institution are offered a scheduled talk with the Ombudsman’s staff during the visit. However, there is also often time for a spontaneous talk with users, for instance when the monitoring staff are being showed around. Case No. 14/02937 Case No. 14/02544 When a group of commissioners of the Zimbabwean UN Commission on Human Rights paid a visit to the Danish Institute of Human Rights, the Commission had just received the authority to act as the ombudsman of the country. Consequently, the institute suggested a visit to the Danish Ombudsman. The 10 commissioners were received by one of the Ombudsman’s legal case officers. The legal case officer gave an introduction to the Danish Ombudsman’s work and then invited the guests to come forward with questions and topics for discussion. The guests wished, among other things, to discuss how an ombudsman keeps his independence and avoids being political. They also asked, quizzically, why a female ombudsman had not been appointed in Denmark yet. Every year, the Parliamentary Ombudsman office opens its doors to many visitors from both Denmark and abroad. A local grassroots organisation was dissatisfied with the plans for the siting of a new motorway. The Minister for Transport had agreed with some of the members of Parliament’s Transport Committee that the motorway was to be constructed south of a village, and not north. According to the grassroots organisation, it was recommended not only by the local citizens, but also by the Road Directorate, that the motorway should be constructed north of the village. The grassroots organisation wrote to the Ombudsman and asked whether politicians were ‘entitled to make such a foolish decision’. The Ombudsman answered that the geographical location of a motorway is determined by law. Since the Ombudsman cannot process legislative matters, he had to reject the case. The Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints against Parliament, including complaints about individual members of Parliament, parliamentary committees and acts passed by Parliament.