26 ANNUAL REPORT 2017 A well-known and comparatively simple variant of the question is instances where authorities have given erroneous guidance on deadlines, for instance on the deadline for lodging an appeal against a decision. If there is a four-week deadline for lodging an appeal but the authority explains that the deadline is eight weeks, the authority will normally have to accept an appeal within eight weeks. Is such redress of the adverse effects of guidance errors also relevant when it comes to the actual outcome of the case? The case involving the Immigration Service shows that the answer can be yes. At the Ombudsman institution, we were of the opinion that the immigration authorities ought to look into the case again, and the Immigration Service subsequently granted the man a residence permit of indefinite duration. THE CITIZEN MUST BE GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT It may sound as if this case represents a new departure. It does not. It builds on a number of previous cases where the result was also that the citizen had to be placed in the same position as if the authorities had given correct guidance. In a case from 2016, a Danish citizen had settled in another EU country shortly before he reached state pension age. The authorities did not guide him – as they should have done according to the rules – on the possibility of applying for state pension even though he had provided them with his address abroad. He therefore did not apply for state pension from the time when he was entitled to do so according to the law. The Ombudsman recommended to the National Social Appeals Board to reopen the case and consider whether the man should be granted state pension retroactively. (Case No. 2016-24). But the case involving the Immigration Service is the most recent of its kind, and it illustrates a number of the questions which may arise in these cases – for instance the question how to assess what the affected citizen might have done if he or she had been given correct guidance. This can sometimes be difficult because, obviously, history never knows its alternatives. And if one had to take as one’s basis that the couple would in all events have chosen to continue receiving the woman’s cash benefit, the guidance error should not, of course, lead to a residence permit of indefinite duration for the man.