82 | Annual Report 2018 In the Ombudsman’s opinion it was most likely that the memorandum was an administrative measure which was likely to affect the elements of the environment, cf. section 3 paragraph (3) of the Environmental Information Act, which meant that it was comprised by the concept of ‘environmental information’. In addition, the calculations and assumptions used in connection with the memorandum were environmental information in themselves, cf. section 3 paragraph (5) of the Act. journalist was entitled to access to the report in full under the Environmental Information Act, but the Ministry decided to postpone its reply for about 10 days. The reason was that – because the issue of disposal of radioactive waste was politically very sensitive – the Ministry did not want to release the report to the journalist until it could be published on the Ministry’s website together with a proposal for the Government’s policy on the issue. The files to which the journalist had requested access concerned the way in which the Ministry had handled the criticism that had been raised of the memorandum. The Ombudsman noted that the files concerned questions about the professional tenability of what was stated in the memorandum – and thus had a close connection with the memorandum in terms of contents. The Ombudsman was of the opinion that, at least under these circumstances, the information in the files was to be regarded as comprised by the concept of ‘environmental information’. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the Ministry was not entitled to postpone its reply to the journalist’s request until the Government was ready to publish the report together with its proposal for a long-term solution in relation to the issue. Further, the Ombudsman referred, among other things, to the fact that one of the fundamental objectives of the rules on access to environmental information is more effective participation by the public in environmental decision-making. On that basis, the Ombudsman recommended that the Ministry reopen the case. Ministry of Higher Education and Science The following statements on cases concluded in 2018 have been published: 2018-17. Ministry postponed granting access to report on radioactive waste until Government had policy statement ready for publication A journalist asked the Ministry of Higher Education and Science for access to a report prepared by an interdepartmental working group on disposal of ra­ dioactive waste. It was clear to the Ministry just under two weeks after it had received the request that the More specifically, the Ombudsman was of the opinion that the way in which the Ministry had handled the journalist’s request was contrary to the rules of law applicable to the processing of such cases and contrary to very fundamental considerations and objectives behind the rules on access to public records. The Ombudsman therefore found that the way in which the Ministry had handled the case was a matter for extreme criticism. In pursuance of section 24 of the Ombudsman Act, the Ombudsman notified Parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee and the Minister for Higher Education and Science of the case. In addition, the Ombudsman notified Parliament’s Higher Education and Research Committee. 2018-29. Certain of the pop-up messages displayed by the digital self-service system ‘minSU’ for, among other things, applications for educational grants were in effect decisions. The messages were subject to the duty of registration In the Ombudsman’s opinion the processing by the Danish Agency for Institutions and Educational Grants of so-called premature applications for educational grants by means of the self-service IT system ‘minSU’ was in some respects incompatible with the require-