142 ANNUAL REPORT 2015 2015-52. Refusal of application for distribution subsidy for association’s periodical – interpretation of provision in executive order and explanatory notes to enabling act An association complained to the Ombudsman because the Allocation Committee for the Pool for Certain Magazines and Periodicals had refused the association’s application for a distribution subsidy for its periodical on the grounds that the association operated a professional publishing house. In its complaint to the Ombudsman, the association stated, among other things, that under the Executive Order on Distribution Subsidies, the Allocation Committee could only refuse its application if, in addition, its periodical was published for a commercial purpose. The Ombudsman was of the opinion that the wording of the Executive Order did not in itself provide a completely clear answer to the question of what was required in order for the association’s application to be refused. However, based on the explanatory notes to the enabling act, the Ombudsman concluded that the will of the legislature had been to preclude publications published for a commercial purpose from receiving subsidies. The provision was therefore to be interpreted to mean that an application could be refused only if the applicant was a professional publishing house/a professional publisher and the specific publication was published for a commercial purpose. The Ombudsman also disagreed with the Committee’s understanding of the phrase ‘for a commercial purpose’. In the Committee’s opinion, the mere fact that a publication was sold was enough for the publication to be regarded as published for a commercial purpose. However, the Ombudsman noted that the Committee’s understanding of the phrase differed markedly from the usual linguistic understanding of the phrase as meaning ‘for financial gain’. As the explanatory notes did not provide grounds for a different interpretation, the Ombudsman was of the opinion that the phrase was to be understood in accordance with the usual linguistic understanding of the phrase – that is, the publication was to be published for financial gain. The Ombudsman recommended that the Allocation Committee reopen the case and make a new decision. In this connection, the Ombudsman recommended, among other things, that the Committee include in its considerations that according to the available information the association was a non-profit organisation with an educationally-related object and that the editorial staff and the other contributors to the periodical were unpaid.