Summaries of selected statements | 85 it did and at its own initiative. In addition, the Ombudsman considered the content of some of the updates inadequate. ances could not ‘in themselves’ constitute adequate documentation. The Board found that the man was entitled to integration benefit – not cash benefit. The Ombudsman agreed that precise information is not to be given about when a decision can be expected if this is not possible. However, the Ombudsman was of the opinion that in that case, the authority should inform the citizen about the reason(s) for the delay. The Ombudsman also found that in accordance with good administrative practice, updates from an authority should contain information about the time frame within which a decision can be expected based on, among other factors, the available information and the nature and type of the case. The Ombudsman agreed with the National Social Appeals Board that section 11(7) of the Act on an Active Social Policy imposed a heavy burden of proof on the citizen – but that the rule did not change the fact that the authorities were required to investigate the case adequately in pursuance of the ex officio investigation principle. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the National Social Appeals Board could not deny the homeless man’s wish for witness statements to be included in the information on the basis of which the decision was to be made because the Board assessed that they would not be necessary or relevant for the decision. The Ombudsman therefore recommended that in future, the Supervisory Authority ensure that the con­tent of its updates be in keeping with his statement on the case. 2018-31. Cash benefit or integration benefit for homeless person. Documentation of residence. Guidance In order for a person to be eligible for cash benefit, he or she must as a general rule be able to document that he or she has lived in Denmark, Greenland or the Faroe Islands for at least a total of seven out of the last eight years. A homeless man claimed that he had been living in Denmark for the whole period. In this connection, he referred to the fact that his passport had expired in 2004. The man subsequently stated that three named persons would be able to attest his residence in Denmark. The National Social Appeals Board declined to ask for declarations from the three persons, explaining that the persons did not represent ‘an authority, an organisation or another official body’ and that declarations from the man himself and his family and acquaint- Under EU law, citizens of the EU/EEA may be eligible for cash benefit even if they have been living in a country other than Denmark. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the authorities should have guided the homeless man on the possibility of documenting residence in a country other than Denmark – considering that he might have lived in another country during the period at issue but nevertheless have retained his right to cash benefit. The Ombudsman recommended that the National Social Appeals Board reopen the case. Municipal and regional authorities etc. The following statements on cases concluded in 2018 have been published: 2018-4. Information relating to new harbour facilities was environmental information A man had asked a municipally owned self-governing harbour for access to information in material relating to the construction of new harbour facilities. The harbour refused the man’s request with reference to provisions in the Access to Public Administration Files Act 2013.