14 annual report 2012 We try to compensate for this, for instance by means of articles in our Annual Report, training courses and participation in seminars, conferences etc. We therefore give a high priority to such efforts. During 2012, we considered whether our communication of important messages to the authorities could be further strengthened and systematised and whether in this way we could ‘get ahead’ of the cases to a greater extent and help the authorities avoid errors instead of criticising them afterwards. For the citizens it is of course better if the errors are not made in the first place rather than being made and then criticised. So far, these considerations have resulted in a decision in principle to develop a special module at www.ombudsmanden.dk where the Ombudsman’s views on practically important issues of administrative law will be summarised briefly and in an accessible form. The purpose is to provide the authorities with guidelines as far as possible, for instance specifying what must be included when giving grounds for a decision in order that they meet the requirements of the Public Administration Act, what the rules for the freedom of expression of public employees are, where the authorities typically make errors in social benefit fraud cases and what the main pitfalls are when transitioning to digital administration. This is the type of question on which we hope to be able to provide better guidance to the authorities in this way. This is a major project which it will take years to implement and which has to be regularly adjusted and maintained, but we expect to be able to take the first steps in the second half of 2013. 3. Cases in 2012 which made a special impression The short case summaries inserted throughout this report provide a picture of the variety of problems which we address in our daily work. The following are some of the cases which in their various ways made a special impression on us during 2012: Undoubtedly the most spectacular and widely discussed case in 2012 was Case No. 2012-13 concerning Member of Parliament Henrik Sass Larsen and his complaint about the Prime Minister’s Office, the Ministry of Justice and the Security and Intelligence Service (PET). Among other things this case raised issues concerning the Ombudsman’s role in cases of a political nature. I discuss the case elsewhere in the Annual Report (pages 50-55).