69 Case No. 13/02929 The Danish Broadcasting Corporation, the DR, did not agree with a man’s criticism of the physical setting for the Corporation’s TV news, and the man therefore complained to the Ombudsman. In the man’s opinion, the lighting and graphics in the studio could make it difficult to concentrate on the contents of the programmes and it was consequently obstructing the DR’s public service obligation. The Ombudsman replied that he would not investigate the complaint because he, in his capacity of Ombudsman, did not have any expertise regarding the communication of news programmes. The Ombudsman had replied the same to the man’s two previous complaints about the DR’s news programmes. Therefore, the Ombudsman added this time that any ­future complaints from the man about lighting and graphics in the DR’s news programmes would be read but not answered, unless they contained new and significant information. The Ombudsman usually replies by letter or e-mail to all inquiries he receives. However, as part of his prioritising of tasks, the Ombudsman may choose to restrict his replies to citizens who contact him repeatedly with the same complaint. Case No. 13/05368 Gang and biker affiliated inmates in Danish prisons are placed in special units with more restrictive conditions than those of other inmates. A young man was registered as a member of a gang in Copenhagen and had therefore ended up in a special unit. He wrote a briefly worded complaint to the Ombudsman, who asked the Department of Prisons and Probation for a loan of the case documents. Some weeks later, the Department telephoned the Ombudsman and said that a new security assessment of the inmate had now been carried out which showed that he no longer had any gang affiliations and therefore could be moved to an ordinary prison unit. The Ombudsman consequently took no further action in the case. The Ombudsman sets no special requirements as to the form, volume or language of a complaint. Case Nos. 13/03165 and 13/03938 In a much publicised case, the Danish Security and Intelligence Service (PET) had briefed the Ministry for Justice concerning a Member of Parliament. A journalist asked the Ministry for access to the briefing, and he would also like access to information about the time when the briefing was given – for instance in the form of entries in appointment books. The Ministry for Justice replied that the briefing had been given verbally and that there was consequently no document to be given access to. The Ministry also wrote to the journalist that there were no written notes as to when the briefing had been given. This puzzled the journalist, and he complained to the Ombudsman about the Ministry’s refusal of his request for access. The Ombudsman rejected his complaint because the Ministry had stated that there were no documents to give the journalist access to. The Ombudsman does not normally have the possibility of questioning witnesses but processes complaints on the basis of the information he receives from complainants and public authorities. The Ombudsman will often have to give up on getting to the bottom of a case if the parties disagree on the veracity of the information.