Summaries of selected statements | 75 Ministry of Ecclesiastical Affairs Ministry of Culture The following statement on a case concluded in 2018 has been published: The following statements on cases concluded in 2018 have been published: 2018-25. Assigning a pew to the father of a candidate for confi mation was not a decision within the meaning of the Public Administration Act. Request for access to e-mail communication was to be decided under the Access to Public Administration Files Act The Ombudsman could not criticise the outcome of a decision by the Ministry of Ecclesiastical Affairs that the father of a candidate for confirmation could not be given further access to e-mail communication between the candidate’s mother and the vicar in connection with the confirmation. 2018-7. Refusal of access to information about fees payable to orchestra by Royal Danish Theatre The Royal Danish Theatre gave a citizen access to a collaboration agreement between the Theatre and an orchestra except for information about the fees payable to the orchestra. In its decision, the Theatre referred to section 30 paragraph (2) of the Access to Public Administration Files Act on exemption of information on business matters or on matters pertaining to operations, among other information. The citizen appealed the decision to the Ministry of Culture, which upheld the Theatre’s refusal of access to the information about fees. The e-mail communication included information which related purely to pastoral care and was thus subject to the specific confidentiality provision in 2-5-20 of the Danish Law of King Christian V. The Ombudsman was precluded from investigating which of the information in the e-mail correspondence was subject to this provision as pastoral care is related to the tenets or doctrines of the Church, cf. section 9 of the Ombudsman Act. The Ombudsman did not agree with the Ministry that the vicar’s decision on where the father was to sit during the confirmation service was a decision within the meaning of the Public Administration Act. For this reason, the Ombudsman found that the father’s request for access to the communication relating to this decision should have been decided under the Access to Public Administration Files Act. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the Ministry of Ecclesiastical Affairs should have asked to receive the files to which the father had been denied access before making its decision. The Ombudsman had no grounds for criticising the Ministry’s decision that Viborg Diocese was not disqualified from considering the father’s appeals. The Ombudsman agreed that the information about the fees payable to the orchestra fell within the scope of section 30 paragraph (2) of the Access to Public Administration Files Act. However, the Ombudsman did not reach a final conclusion on whether section 30 paragraph (2) was applicable to the information to which access had been denied. He explained that in his opinion the case raised the question whether the orchestra had in effect waived the protection offered by section 30 paragraph (2). The Royal Danish Theatre and the Ministry of Culture had not considered this question, and the Ombudsman therefore recommended that the Ministry reopen the case and make a new decision – in the light of what he had stated – on access. Reopening the case would also give the Ministry the opportunity to consider the significance of certain aspects of the competitive situation of the orchestra.