76 | Annual Report 2018 2018-8. Neither status as trade union representative nor duty of loyalty imposed restrictions on TV station employee’s freedom of expression – but criticism of TV programme was expressed in unreasonably offensive manner In a comment on Facebook, an employee of the Danish Broadcasting Corporation (DR) who was a planner for some of DR’s technical staff criticised a television programme with which she had no involvement in connection with her job. In her post on Facebook, she described the programme as having ‘no balls whatsoever’ and as representing ‘the most unprofessional, failed, shitty ‘journalism’ on Danish television. Ever!’. Shortly afterwards, the employee was summoned to a talk where she received a letter stating that DR intended to give her a disciplinary warning on the grounds that her comment on Facebook was improper and had been expressed in an unreasonably offensive manner. In addition, DR questioned her loyalty and stated that as a trade union representative, she should, among other things, set an example to colleagues. DR also found that readers might be in doubt whether the employee had made the comment on behalf of DR. After consulting the employee as a party to the case, DR decided solely to request that she be mindful of not making remarks expressed in an offensive manner about DR in future. The Ombudsman found that DR had made significant errors during the case. In the Ombudsman’s opinion there was no doubt that the employee had made the comment on Facebook in a private capacity. Further, the Ombudsman found that DR’s letter about its intention to give the employee a disciplinary warning was liable to leave the impression that both the fact that she was a trade union representative and public employees’ general duty of loyalty in themselves imposed special restrictions on her freedom of expression. However, based on an overall assessment, the Ombudsman did not find sufficient grounds for criticising that DR considered the employee’s comment to be unreasonably offensive and thus to have overstepped the limits of her freedom of expression. Therefore, the Ombudsman could not criticise that DR had on that basis requested that she be mindful of not making remarks expressed in an offensive manner about DR in future. 2018-13. Access to correspondence with the Royal House A journalist asked the Ministry of Culture for access to letters exchanged between the Ministry and the Danish Royal House. The correspondence concerned The Crown Prince’s participation in the International Olympic Committee (the IOC) in connection with a decision whether Russia was to be denied the right to participate in the Olympic Games in Rio in 2016 on account of doping. The Ministry of Culture denied the journalist access to the correspondence with reference to, among other provisions, section 23(1) paragraph (1) of the Access to Public Administration Files Act on internal documents. The Ministry stated, among other things – following discussion with the Ministry of Justice and the Prime Minister’s Office – that it was of the opinion that any exchange of information between the Government and the Royal House on government policy should be regarded as taking place in connection with ‘participation by the Royal House in the governing of the State’, as the objective of such exchange of information was to ensure the neutrality of the Royal House in relation to political matters. The Ministry of Culture therefore assessed that the correspondence between the Ministry and the Royal House in the specific case took place in connection with ‘participation by the Royal House