21 The Ombudsman received three different complaints about the Appointed Building Experts Disciplinary and Complaints Tribunal. The Tribunal was established by statute on 1 January 2011 and the Ombudsman had not previously considered whether it was within his jurisdiction. After reviewing the Tribunal’s tasks and composition and the rules for its case processing, he regarded it as a dispute tribunal, which meant that he could not con­ sider the complaints. The Ombudsman cannot consider complaints about so-called dispute tribunals, which settle disagreements between private citizens, if they process cases in a court-like manner. This follows from section 7(3) of the Ombudsman Act. A woman wrote to the Ombudsman because she felt badly treated by a removal firm, an insurance company and her lawyer. She could not afford a court case and asked for help to claim compensation. The Ombudsman wrote to the woman that he was unable to help her as the subjects of her complaint were not part of the public admin­ istration. He added that she might contact the Consumer Complaints Board, the Insurance Complaints Board and the Disciplinary Board of the Danish Bar and Law Society. The Ombudsman also described the possibil­ ities of applying for legal aid for a court case. Pursuant to the Ombudsman Act, the Ombuds­ ­­man considers complaints about the public administration, but not complaints about private individuals or organisations. A 15-year-old Sri Lankan girl applied for a residence permit to live with her mother, who had moved to Denmark some years earlier, but her application was rejected. The authorities attached importance to the facts that the girl was born and grew up in her native country and had lived for much of her life with her grandmother there. She had also attended school in Sri Lanka and spoke the language. The authorities furthermore attached importance to the fact that the mother had herself chosen to move to Denmark, leaving the girl behind, and that the girl’s father, grandmother and step-siblings all lived in her native country. The Ombudsman received a complaint about the rejection from a legal aid bureau. He asked the Ministry of Justice to explain the case in the light of a specific case which had been considered by the UN Human Rights Committee and the possible significance of a specific judgment by the European Court of Human Rights. The Ministry responded and the Ombudsman considered the case on the basis of the relevant international rules. He then wrote to the legal aid bureau that he found no grounds for criti­ cising the authorities. When considering cases, the Ombudsman in­ cludes relevant international rules and practice. In family reunification cases, he considers, among other things, Article 8 of the European Human Rights Convention concerning the right to respect for private and family life and deci­ sions by the European Court of Human Rights. In child cases, he also considers the rules in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.