114 annual report 2011 disabilities or special needs by making the decisions available in the Agency’s computer system. It was then up to the applying educational establishment to search the system in order to see whether the Agency had made a decision in the case. Thus, neither the applying educational establishment nor to the student who was the intended recipient of the support was notified of the decision. The Ombudsman asked the Agency to explain the legal basis for its practice and to inform him who the Agency considered to be parties to such a case. In the Agency’s opinion, the student who was the intended recipient of the support was, among others, a party to the case. The Ombudsman concurred with this. In addition, the Ombudsman stated that it follows from general legal principles that authorities must directly notify the parties to a case of their decision. A deviation from a legal principle requires a clear statutory basis. The act on support for students with disabilities or special needs did not provide such a clear statutory basis, and the Ombudsman therefore recommended that the Agency change its administrative practice and communicate its decisions directly to the students who were to receive the support. Finally, the Ombudsman stated that there was not a sufficient legal basis for the Agency’s requirement that educational establishments applying for support for students with disabilities or special needs had to receive the decisions via the Agency’s computer system. (Case No. 2010-1527-7093) k. M  inistry OF Science, innovation and higher education The following case concluded in 2011 was selected for publication in the Annual Report: 12-1. Electronic communication with universities. Representation by others The Ombudsman opened a case on his own initiative vis-à-vis the Ministry of Science, Technology and Development regarding the access of students and