<base href="http://t3urednik.sigov.si/varuh-rs/typo3/" />

Denmark, Folketingets Ombudsmand

International contacts

Visitors received in October, November and December 1999

• October 5, a parliamentary delegation from Ghana.
• October 7, the Ombudsman of Malawi.
• October 10, two journalists from the Korean TV station YTN.
• November 11, the Speaker of the Ukrainean Parliament.
• November 30, a TV-team from Albania.
• December 3, a delegation from the National Human Rights Commission of Bangladesh.
• December 6, the Ombudsperson of Ukraine.

Miscellaneous

Annual Report 1998

In September 1999 the Danish Ombudsman submitted his Annual Report to the Parliament. Here are some figures:

3,542 new complaint cases were submitted in 1998. 48 individual cases were taken up on the Ombudsman's initiative. We had 21 inspections and 19 new cases in an own-initiative project.

In comparison, the total number of new complaints registered in the past ten years is as follows:

1989    2,093
1990    2,233
1991    2,566
1992    2,926
1993    2,943
1994    2,937
1995    3,030
1996    2,914
1997    3,524
1998    3,630

2,502 of the 3,630 cases in 1998 were not investigated for various reasons. In total 939 cases were processed in 1998. 162 of these cases involved criticism and recommendation.

Some selected examples of cases processed in 1998 are the following:

1-1 Cancellation as member of an unemployment fund. The fraud concept. Intent requirement. Proof requirement. The principle that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution

The Labour Market Appeals Board endorsed a decision to cancel a person's unemployment fund membership on the grounds of fraud.

The prosecution had decided not to charge A with fraud as there was insufficient proof of intent. The Ombudsman took for his basis that the concept of intent in the fraud provision in the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Penal Code was in principle the same, but that they differed as regards the proof requirement. The dropping of charges under the Penal Code therefore did not necessarily imply that the cancellation for fraud under the Unemployment Insurance Act had to be revoked.

However, the statements by the authorities showed that they attached less weight to the prosecution's dropping of charges than to an acquittal. The Ombudsman stated that in accordance with the general principles of criminal prosecution the two forms of reaction were comparable in the given context and recommended that the Appeals Board reconsider the case. (J.no. 1997-2580-019).

8-2 Application for permission of sterilisation. Giving of grounds

On behalf of her 17-year-old daughter who suffered from Downs Syndrome a mother had applied for permission of sterilisation. The Abortion and Sterilisation Council rejected the application and the Board of Appeal for Abortion and Sterilisation Cases endorsed the Council's rejection. The authorities justified the rejection by the daughter's youth and her failure to try the various kinds of prevention.

The authorities referred to provisions in an act that had been amended and the Ombudsman noted that the Board of Appeal and the Council should have made their decisions on the new legal basis.

The Board of Appeal should also have assessed the significance of the daughter's having meanwhile reached the age of 18. Finally the Ombudsman found that the grounds given by the Board of Appeal and the Council for the rejections did not meet the requirements of the Public Administration Act.

The Ombudsman therefore recommended that the Board of Appeal reconsider the case. (J.no. 1997-3016-429).

8-7 Recognition of foreign adoption. Right of citizenship

A Danish married couple in 1996 adopted a Thai boy. At the time of the adoption the couple were living in England and the adoption happened on the basis of an English adoption order.

In connection with the couple's application for naturalisation (Danish citizenship) of the boy, the Department of Private Law refused to recognise the adoption as valid according to Danish law. The Department referred to Section 28 of the Adoption Act, whereby a person resident in Denmark may only adopt according to the rules of the Adoption Act. In the Department's opinion the couple had not relinquished their Danish residence although they had lived for several years in England at the time of the adoption.

The couple lodged a complaint with the Ombudsman who asked the Department of Private Law for an amplifying statement, especially in relation to the residence concept.

On this background the Department of Private Law decided to reconsider the case and subsequently recognised the adoption as valid according to Danish law. (J.no. 1997-2332-656).

13-5 The freedom of expression of public employees

Three Tax and Customs employees had in a newspaper commented critically on the Central Customs and Tax Administration's decision to restructure parts of the customs supervision. Subsequently the tax office had informed the employees that their comments were regarded as disloyal to the organisation. The tax office explicitly told the employees that they must not comment on the future customs supervision strategies.

The Ombudsman stated that public employees who made statements as part of their duties were subject to the management's directives in the usual way. On the other hand there were limits to the management's powers to restrict the right of public employees to express themselves publicly as private individuals.

The Ombudsman found that the three employees had commented as private individuals on a matter which was within their field of activity. They had not taken part in the decision-making process around the restructuring of the customs supervision in a way that might affect their access to make public statements. Moreover their comments had been made after the decision to restructure the customs supervision had been taken. In the Ombudsman's opinion a public employee was entitled to make critical statements about an authority without necessarily overstepping the bounds of his loyalty obligation. The comments by the three employees were clearly within the limitations applying to the freedom of expression of public employees. The Ombudsman therefore considered the reprimanding of the three employees a matter for criticism. (J.no. 1997-2513-815).

Denmark, Folketingets Ombudsmand

International contacts

Visitors received in October, November and December 1999

• October 5, a parliamentary delegation from Ghana.
• October 7, the Ombudsman of Malawi.
• October 10, two journalists from the Korean TV station YTN.
• November 11, the Speaker of the Ukrainean Parliament.
• November 30, a TV-team from Albania.
• December 3, a delegation from the National Human Rights Commission of Bangladesh.
• December 6, the Ombudsperson of Ukraine.

Miscellaneous

Annual Report 1998

In September 1999 the Danish Ombudsman submitted his Annual Report to the Parliament. Here are some figures:

3,542 new complaint cases were submitted in 1998. 48 individual cases were taken up on the Ombudsman's initiative. We had 21 inspections and 19 new cases in an own-initiative project.

In comparison, the total number of new complaints registered in the past ten years is as follows:

1989    2,093
1990    2,233
1991    2,566
1992    2,926
1993    2,943
1994    2,937
1995    3,030
1996    2,914
1997    3,524
1998    3,630

2,502 of the 3,630 cases in 1998 were not investigated for various reasons. In total 939 cases were processed in 1998. 162 of these cases involved criticism and recommendation.

Some selected examples of cases processed in 1998 are the following:

1-1 Cancellation as member of an unemployment fund. The fraud concept. Intent requirement. Proof requirement. The principle that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution

The Labour Market Appeals Board endorsed a decision to cancel a person's unemployment fund membership on the grounds of fraud.

The prosecution had decided not to charge A with fraud as there was insufficient proof of intent. The Ombudsman took for his basis that the concept of intent in the fraud provision in the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Penal Code was in principle the same, but that they differed as regards the proof requirement. The dropping of charges under the Penal Code therefore did not necessarily imply that the cancellation for fraud under the Unemployment Insurance Act had to be revoked.

However, the statements by the authorities showed that they attached less weight to the prosecution's dropping of charges than to an acquittal. The Ombudsman stated that in accordance with the general principles of criminal prosecution the two forms of reaction were comparable in the given context and recommended that the Appeals Board reconsider the case. (J.no. 1997-2580-019).

8-2 Application for permission of sterilisation. Giving of grounds

On behalf of her 17-year-old daughter who suffered from Downs Syndrome a mother had applied for permission of sterilisation. The Abortion and Sterilisation Council rejected the application and the Board of Appeal for Abortion and Sterilisation Cases endorsed the Council's rejection. The authorities justified the rejection by the daughter's youth and her failure to try the various kinds of prevention.

The authorities referred to provisions in an act that had been amended and the Ombudsman noted that the Board of Appeal and the Council should have made their decisions on the new legal basis.

The Board of Appeal should also have assessed the significance of the daughter's having meanwhile reached the age of 18. Finally the Ombudsman found that the grounds given by the Board of Appeal and the Council for the rejections did not meet the requirements of the Public Administration Act.

The Ombudsman therefore recommended that the Board of Appeal reconsider the case. (J.no. 1997-3016-429).

8-7 Recognition of foreign adoption. Right of citizenship

A Danish married couple in 1996 adopted a Thai boy. At the time of the adoption the couple were living in England and the adoption happened on the basis of an English adoption order.

In connection with the couple's application for naturalisation (Danish citizenship) of the boy, the Department of Private Law refused to recognise the adoption as valid according to Danish law. The Department referred to Section 28 of the Adoption Act, whereby a person resident in Denmark may only adopt according to the rules of the Adoption Act. In the Department's opinion the couple had not relinquished their Danish residence although they had lived for several years in England at the time of the adoption.

The couple lodged a complaint with the Ombudsman who asked the Department of Private Law for an amplifying statement, especially in relation to the residence concept.

On this background the Department of Private Law decided to reconsider the case and subsequently recognised the adoption as valid according to Danish law. (J.no. 1997-2332-656).

13-5 The freedom of expression of public employees

Three Tax and Customs employees had in a newspaper commented critically on the Central Customs and Tax Administration's decision to restructure parts of the customs supervision. Subsequently the tax office had informed the employees that their comments were regarded as disloyal to the organisation. The tax office explicitly told the employees that they must not comment on the future customs supervision strategies.

The Ombudsman stated that public employees who made statements as part of their duties were subject to the management's directives in the usual way. On the other hand there were limits to the management's powers to restrict the right of public employees to express themselves publicly as private individuals.

The Ombudsman found that the three employees had commented as private individuals on a matter which was within their field of activity. They had not taken part in the decision-making process around the restructuring of the customs supervision in a way that might affect their access to make public statements. Moreover their comments had been made after the decision to restructure the customs supervision had been taken. In the Ombudsman's opinion a public employee was entitled to make critical statements about an authority without necessarily overstepping the bounds of his loyalty obligation. The comments by the three employees were clearly within the limitations applying to the freedom of expression of public employees. The Ombudsman therefore considered the reprimanding of the three employees a matter for criticism. (J.no. 1997-2513-815).