Summaries of selected statements | 81 Ministry of Health The following statement on a case concluded in 2018 has been published: 2018-22. No illegal restriction of discretion in case about dentist’s ownership of shares in pharmaceutical company A dentist complained to the Ombudsman because the Danish Medicines Agency and the Ministry of Health had refused her permission to hold shares of a value exceeding DKK 300,000 at the time of purchase in a pharmaceutical company. Under the applicable rules, dentists require permission from the Danish Medicines Agency in order to hold shares of a value exceeding DKK 200,000 in, for instance, a pharmaceutical company. In their decisions to refuse the dentist permission, the authorities had referred to a recommended maximum limit of DKK 300,000, which was stated only in guidance notes on dentists’ affiliation with, among others, pharmaceutical enterprises. The dentist was of the opinion that by applying the recommended maximum limit to her case, the authorities had failed to exercise individual discretion as required by the rules. In other words, they had ‘restricted the discretion which they were required to exercise by automatically applying guidance or policy’. The dentist argued, among other things, that she should be granted permission as she did not use the products of the pharmaceutical company in her business as a dentist. The Ombudsman stated that one of the objectives of the rules on permissions for health care professionals to have affiliations with, among others, pharmaceutical enterprises was to generally ensure the impartiality and credibility of health care professionals and patient confidence in their treatment. Thus, under the applicable legislation, a decision whether share ownership could be permitted was not to be based solely on whether it might have an actual influence on the applicant’s prescription practice etc. – but also more generally on the nature of the company and the value of the applicant’s ownership interest. In addition, the Ombudsman stated that the authorities had explained that the maximum limit was a recommended limit. On that basis, the Ombudsman could not criticise the authorities’ refusal. Ministry of Transport, Building and Housing The following statement on a case concluded in 2018 has been published: 2018-2. Memorandum drawn up to form the basis for political discussions was comprised by the concept of ‘environmental information’ The Ministry of Transport, Building and Housing had drawn up a memorandum on what the costs of shifting motorists from cars to trains would be. The memorandum was intended to form the basis for political discussions of modes of transport of the future. A journalist who had written critical articles about the memorandum requested access from the Ministry to its correspondence with him and the publication for which he worked. The Ombudsman understood that the Ministry had complained to the journalist’s editor-in-chief about his coverage of the memorandum. The Ministry granted the journalist access under the Access to Public Administration Files Act to a number of files, and he subsequently requested access under the Environmental Information Act to the files to which he had been denied access. The Ministry refused the journalist’s request because it did not consider the information in the files to be environmental information.