SUMMARIES OF SELECTED CASES ment in his business must be considered to have ceased more than temporarily. The Employment Committee emphasised that until that date, the man had in effect been able to carry out work himself, as the dentistry equipment, which must be considered to be essential work equipment, was still in his possession. The dentistry equipment was sold in February 2009 but was not dismantled and collected by the buyer until 28 April 2009. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, an interpretation whereby solely the actual possibility of carrying out work decided whether or not an individual could be considered to have ceased personal work involvement more than temporarily was not in accordance with the provision in section 74 c(1) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, including the provision’s text, purpose and explanatory notes. The Ombudsman was of the opinion that all the available facts of the case must be specifically assessed. On this basis, it had to be assessed whether the man had not only discontinued his business but had also had a sufficient intention to cease his personal work involvement. It was the Ombudsman’s overall opinion that the Employment Committee of the National Social Appeals Board had not carried out a sufficiently specific ­assessment of the available case facts, which, prima facie, seemed to indicate with considerable certainty that the man’s personal work involvement had ceased on 16 January 2009. The Ombudsman recommended that the Employment Committee reopen the case. 2013-7. Guidance on the possibilities of reopening ­industrial injury cases pursuant to both statutory and non-statutory rules The Ombudsman opened an own-initiative case concerning the guidance given by the industrial injuries authorities on the possibilities of reopening industrial injury cases. The reason was that the Ombudsman had become aware − while processing a specific case − that the guidance given by the industrial injuries authorities was not true and fair. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, guidance on the possibilities of reopening a case (as with guidance on any appeal options) is intended to ensure that the citizen receives the information he or she needs in order to safeguard his or her own 139