SUMMARIES OF SELECTED STATEMENTS The authorities in the industrial injuries field – the National Social Appeals Board, the Ministry of Employment and the National Board of Industrial Injuries – disagreed whether an employer exercising its statutory right of appeal became a party to the appeal case. The National Social Appeals Board was of the opinion that this was the case but the Ministry of Employment and the National Board of Industrial Injuries took the opposite view. On analysing the applicable legislation, the Ombudsman did not find that he could criticise that the National Social Appeals Board had based its practice in this respect on the general rules of administrative law. In accordance with general administrative law, a person who exercises a statutory right of appeal as a general rule becomes a party to the appeal case itself – also if he or she was not a party to the case when it was considered at first instance. The Ombudsman pointed out that the employer becomes a party to the case only as far as the issue of recognition of the industrial injury is concerned, as it is in relation to decisions on this issue that employers have a right of appeal. The Ombudsman also stated that when considering a request for access to information, the National Social Appeals Board needs to pay attention to whether the case contains information which is exempt from access. 2015-39. Case about repayment of housing benefit was inadequately investigated. Failure to consult recipient as a party to the case A woman complained to the Ombudsman about decisions made by Udbetaling Danmark (the authority responsible for a number of public benefits) and the National Social Appeals Board that she had to repay the full amount of housing benefit which she had received for 2012. The decisive factor in the case was whether the woman had informed her municipality (which at that time had the remit for the housing benefit area) during the 2012 benefit year about an extra income which her husband had received in 2012. Thus, if she had informed her municipality about the extra income, the authorities could demand repayment of only part of the amount which she had received in housing benefit. If, on the other hand, she had not informed the municipality, the full amount was to be repaid. 151