APPENDIX B: SUMMARIES OF SELECTED CASES The Ombudsman stated that in his opinion parties to cases should be sent letters acknowledging receipt of their applications and individual notifications of the case processing time. The Immigration Service could not deviate from this by asking applicants to telephone the Service or consult www.nyidanmark.dk for information. The Ministry of Justice – which became responsible for the subject matter through a reorganisation of responsibilities – agreed with the Ombudsman’s opinion and asked the Immigration Service to ensure that parties to cases were sent letters of receipt and kept apprised of the case processing time. As a result of the Ombudsman’s investigation, the Immigration Service also stated that the Service would change its guidelines on when to take notes on telephone reminders in the cases, in accordance with the Ombudsman’s statement. 2012-13. Doubtful if verbal order to remain silent could be considered valid Following a general election a member of the Danish Parliament was a candidate for a ministerial post. Prior to the Government being formed, he was summoned to a meeting at the Prime Minister’s Office with, among others, the Permanent Secretaries of the Prime Minister’s Office and the Ministry of Justice. At the meeting he was shown a memorandum written by the Security and Intelligence Service (PET) containing information which the ministries believed would prevent him from obtaining the required security clearance to become a minister. He was also issued with a verbal order to remain silent with regard to the information in the memorandum. He later asked the Ministry of Justice for access to the memorandum but his request was refused. Through his lawyer, the Member of Parliament complained to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman stated that he did not have sufficient grounds for rejecting the authorities’ assessment that an order to remain silent could be imposed with regard to the information in the memorandum. However, the Ombudsman did find it a matter for severe criticism that the order to remain silent had not been imposed in writing and that the availability of documentation of the order’s existence, content and scope was not otherwise ensured. In the Ombudsman’s opinion these circumstances made it extremely doubtful whether the order to remain silent could be enforced. 103