42 annual report 2012 amount for benefits already received. The local authority and the Social Tribunal took the view that the woman was not genuinely single as she had claimed, but lived in a ‘marriage-like relationship’ and had received the benefits ‘in bad faith’. Among other things, the Ombudsman found that the case had not been adequately investigated for the local authority to reach that conclusion. The Ombudsman’s statement, which is popularly known as ‘the Sorø Case’1, received considerable media attention. The issue was also highlighted by, among other things, a documentary series on DR1 television entitled ‘Action Social Benefit Fraud’. Benefit fraud investigators wanted an explanation of the rules, and since autumn 2012, lawyers from the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s office have participated in a number of events for investigators across the country. In 2013, the Ombudsman has made another statement, the ‘Greve Case’2, in which he considers issues such as the provision of adequate evidence in a case, the privilege against self-incrimination (the right of the subject of a suspicion not to provide information if this would amount to the person accusing him- or herself of a crime) and when a citizen has received social benefits ‘in bad faith’ and therefore has to repay benefits already received. Overall, the Ombudsman’s conclusion in the two cases just described was that the local authorities did not have adequate evidence to conclude that the citizens had committed fraud – and that the decisions had been made on too tenuous and uncertain a basis. Considering these cases, the overall conclusion is that if a local authority observes the rules concerning the legal protection of citizens during a case, it is far more likely to make the ‘right’ decision in the end. In today’s language, it could be called a win-win situation. If, for instance, citizens are given the opportunity to comment on the information available in their case, they are able to defend themselves and the local authority can be sure that any misunderstandings have been cleared up before a decision is made. 1 Annual Report of the Parliamentary Ombudsman, 2012, Case No. 2012-8. 2 Selected for publication in the Annual Report of the Parliamentary Ombudsman, 2013, as Case No. 2013-4. The statement is published (in Danish) on the Ombudsman’s website, www.ombudsmanden.dk.