10 CASE NO. 15/02230 CASE NO. 15/05393 A newspaper article said that the police had taken money away from three foreign nationals for payment of fines against their will. It appeared from the article that the foreign nationals had been arrested for illegal trespassing on the grounds of a school. The Ombudsman was puzzled by the story and sent an enquiry to the regional public prosecutor, asking what he might intend to do about the matter. For several years, the Ombudsman has been in contact with an Iranian state organisation, the General Inspection Organization (the GIO), which monitors the public administration and aims at fighting corruption, among other things. There have been ongoing talks of beginning a closer cooperation on how a public regulatory body works. This led to the GIO asking the Ombudsman to provide the specialist content for a seminar on how to handle complaints about the public administration. The regional public prosecutor asked the police for a statement. The police explained that it had been emphasised that the police was not allowed to take money away from prisoners without their acceptance. The regional public prosecutor recommended to the police that the tightened guidelines be written down and made widely known. In addition, the regional public prosecutor asked the police to bring the three foreign nationals’ specific fine cases before the court. In the light of these measures, the Ombudsman closed the investigation. The Ombudsman’s staff follow the newsflow and read a broad selection of Danish newspapers on a daily basis. It happens several times during a year that the Ombudsman raises cases on the basis of coverage in newspapers or other media. CASE NO. 15/01399 A farmer was dissatisfied because the municipality demanded a fee of 165,000 DKK for a planning permission which, due to a change in the rules, would only cost 7,000 DKK a few months later. The farmer was of the opinion that the municipality should have informed him of the new rules. The farmer had not been informed that he could appeal to the State Administration within four weeks. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the State Administration should have the opportunity to consider whether the farmer’s deadline for appeal had expired. More than four weeks had passed since the farmer received the municipality’s decision, but the deadline for appeal only takes effect when guidance on appeal has been provided. The Ombudsman’s processing of the case meant that the State Administration did process the appeal, even though it had been made more than four weeks after the municipality’s decision. Everybody is entitled to complain to the Ombudsman, and the electronic complaint forms on the websites of the Ombudsman and of the Children’s Division make it easy to lodge a complaint. In 2015, the Ombudsman received 770 complaints via the complaint form. A member of the Ombudsman’s staff was responsible for the seminar which took place in Tehran and lasted two days. About 80 staff members from the GIO participated in the seminar, and they listened with interest and asked a lot of questions. They were particularly keen on information on how it is ensured in Denmark that no one is above control, and the questions concerned, for instance, who investigates complaints about members of Parliament and judges, whether the Ombudsman is independent of Parliament, and whether it is possible to lodge a complaint about the Ombudsman and his staff. The Ombudsman has an agreement with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to enter into projects of cooperation with countries that wish to develop and strengthen their democratic institutions. In 2015, the Ombudsman also entered into a special agreement with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding cooperation with China. CASES NO. 15/03998 AND 15/04506 A father who had not been awarded custody of his daughter by the State Administration complained to the Ombudsman. He wrote, among other things, that the State Administration had omitted to inform and consult him as a party to the case and that he had been placed in a disadvantageous position compared to the mother in negotiations. The father also complained to the State Administration which refused to reopen the custody case, partly because it was due in court soon. The Ombudsman also rejected the complaint with reference to the upcoming legal proceedings in the custody matter, as this would provide the father with the opportunity to express his dissatisfaction with the State Administration. The Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints about judgments and the courts of law – and he therefore refuses to investigate complaints about matters which are expected to be brought before the courts.