Summaries of selected statements | 77 in the governing of the State’ and that the Ministry and the Royal House were therefore to be regarded as one and the same authority. Ministry of Environment and Food The Ombudsman pointed out that when access is requested to correspondence of an administrative authority with the sovereign (or, for instance, The Crown Prince), this raises the question whether the correspondence is to be considered internal or external within the meaning of the Access to Public Administration Files Act. The answer depends on the nature of the correspondence, including whether it took place in connection with ‘participation in the governing of the State’. 2018-37. Authority for rules on loss of right to take out game licence and requirement to pass shotgun shooting test. Interpretation of transitional provisions on right to hunt with rifle or shotgun A man had been entitled to hunt with a shotgun or a rifle before the Game Act came into force in 1994 but lost his right to take out an (annual) game licence under the so-called ‘10-year rule’ of the Executive Order on Game Licences. Under the 10-year rule, any person who has not taken out a game licence within the last 10 years loses the right to do so. In relation to the specific case, the Ombudsman pointed out that The Crown Prince was elected member of the IOC in a personal capacity. According to the available information, The Crown Prince’s tasks as a member of the IOC had at no time been carried out in connection with ‘participation in the governing of the State’. On that basis, the Ombudsman was of the opinion that the correspondence between the Ministry of Culture and the Royal House in the specific case did not take place in connection with ‘participation by the Royal House in the governing of the State’, and that therefore the Ministry and the Royal House could not be regarded as one and the same authority. As a result, the documents to which the journalist had requested access were in the Ombudsman’s opinion not internal under section 23(1) paragraph (1) of the Access to Public Administration Files Act. On that basis, the journalist was entitled to access to the documents unless access could be denied under other provisions in the Act. The Ministry of Culture subsequently reopened the case. The following statement on a case concluded in 2018 has been published: The authorities now required that, in order to be entitled to go rifle and shotgun hunting, the man pass the rifle shooting test and the shotgun shooting test, which were introduced with the coming into force of the Game Act in 1994 and by an amendment to the Executive Order on Game Licences respectively. In the man’s opinion, there was no authority under the Game Act for the 10-year rule or the rules on a shotgun shooting test of the Executive Order. In addition, he was of the opinion that he was in any case exempt under transitional provisions from the requirement to pass the rifle shooting test and the shotgun shooting test. The Ombudsman could not criticise the authorities’ view that there was sufficient authority under the Game Act for the 10-year rule and the rules on a shotgun shooting test of the Executive Order. In addition, the Ombudsman could not criticise the authorities’ view that the transitional provisions on exemption from the rifle shooting test and the shotgun shooting test did not apply to persons who had lost their right to take out a game licence under the 10year rule.