appendix d: summaries of selected cases bility on insufficient grounds. The Ombudsman therefore considered whether to recommend because of this error that the Ministry reconsider the question of the member’s eligibility. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, however, there was no prospect that inclusion of the additional circumstances would result in a diffe­rent outcome of the case as far as the question of eligibility was concerned. Consequently, the Ombudsman decided not to recommend that the Ministry reconsider the question. (Case No. 2009-4422-749) n. ministry of health No cases concluded in 2011 were selected for publication in the Annual Report. o. ministry of taxation The following cases concluded in 2011 were selected for publication in the Annual Report: 13-1. Case processing time of the Property Assessment Appeal Board for Copenhagen In 2010 a firm of accountants complained to the Ombudsman on behalf of a utility company about the case processing time of the Property Assessment Appeal Board for Copenhagen. The firm of accountants was dissatisfied because the Board still had not finished processing the cases regarding the public land assessment as at 1 October 2006 for five properties owned by the utility company. The Board received the appeals in March 2008 and stated during the Ombudsman’s processing of the complaint to him that the five cases could be expected to be concluded mid-2011. This meant that the Board’s case processing time would be more than three years. The Ombudsman concluded processing the complaint from the firm of accoun­ tants before the Board had finished processing the five cases. He stated that the Board’s case processing time, including the Board’s estimated conclusion date for the cases, was clearly unacceptable. 119