How do we introduce e-government without harming our legal rights? | 19 tion Act about the right to make use of representatives and be assisted by others (see also Case Nos. 2011 12-1, 2012-5 and 2016-1). In addition to this, there have also been cases where the chosen technical design of Public Digital Post meant that the authority’s identity was not always apparent from the letters which citizens received (Case No. 2015-22). In another case, citizens were not informed about the authority’s decisions but had to search the system themselves in order to see whether the authority had made a decision (Case No. 2011 18-1). Finally, there have also been cases where the authorities were not aware that statutory authority is required when requesting citizens to communicate digitally with public authorities (Case No. 2015-36). A number of the above cases indicate how essential it is for the legal rights of the individual citizen that digital solutions are configured in accordance with statutory law. But the cases also imply another vital lesson: The problems could have been avoided in almost all cases if the authority had included administrative law and design of the digital solution in the planning from the beginning (Case No. 2014-34). System errors come at a high price It is a prerequisite for the sound development of public digital solutions that the authorities ensure that they obtain a thorough overview at the outset of the case types and procedures which the new solutions must be able to handle (Case No. 2014-24). It is also necessary to consider which case processing rules in regard to consultation of parties and grounds are applicable in the cases in question. It is also a prerequisite for fully automated case processing that you are already able at the time of development of the system to foresee the situations that may occur in actual practice and to design the solution so that the system takes such situations into account. This will typically not be possible in cases where an individual assessment has to be made. Sometimes, a digital solution can be configured in a way so that cases under certain circumstances can be selected for manual case processing. In other instances, a fully automated case processing can only be implemented if the individual assessment is completely taken out of the legislation, and the legislative basis so to speak can be put on a mathematical formula. Errors can result in disregard of the authority’s (the system’s) decision, meaning that it is considered invalid. In that case, the authority must process the case again and make a new decision. There may be a basis for compensation if the citizen has suffered a financial loss. The Ombudsman is concentrating his attention on citizens’ legal rights. But it is not only the individual citizen’s legal rights and trust in the public administration that are put at risk if a digital solution fails. It is also a waste of resources since it can be expensive as well as technically difficult to change a complicated IT system once it has been implemented. In a case about applicants for the State Educational Grant (SU) not having the possibility to be represented by others, it took more than 18 months to put the system right after the Ombudsman expressed criticism (Case No. 2016-1). In the previous case about the Danish Customs and Tax Administration (SKAT) being unable to charge interest, the system was not able to add interest until two years after it had come into operation. Sometimes, the expenses of not putting the systems right until afterwards are so heavy that you choose to legitimise the unlawfulness (Case No. 2015-21).