82 ANNUAL REPORT 2017 After consulting the companies which had been granted export licences, the Authority denied the journalist access to various information, stating, with reference 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, that there would be an obvious risk of the companies suffering financial loss if the information was released to the journalist. The Ministry of Industry, Business and Financial Affairs upheld the decision and in this connection added a supplementary comment that the journalist had previously written critical articles about export of surveillance technology. The journalist then complained to the Ombudsman. The Ministry informed the Ombudsman that it had not used the journalist’s critical articles as grounds for denying him access. The Ministry stated that it had exclusively given weight to the information in question being information on business matters or on matters pertaining to operations which was subject to section 30 paragraph (2) of the Access to Public Administration Files Act. The Ombudsman took the information from the Ministry into account but criticised the Ministry’s wording, which he considered ‘very regrettable’. In addition, the Ombudsman was of the opinion that the authorities could not decline to disclose the name of one of the two companies on the grounds given. For this reason, he recommended that the Ministry reconsider the case. Finally, the Ombudsman found that the Danish Business Authority should have consulted the journalist as a party to the case over the parts of the statements from the companies which did not contain information on business matters or on matters pertaining to operations. However, as the Ministry had partially remedied the error, the Ombudsman did not find sufficient cause to recommend that the Ministry consider the consequences of its failure to consult the journalist. Nevertheless, in the light of his recommendation that the Ministry reconsider the case, the Ombudsman also recommended that it consider over which parts of the statements the journalist should have been consulted and send him those parts of the statements. The Ministry subsequently referred the case back to the Danish Business Authority, which disclosed to the journalist the name of the company whose name the authorities had withheld and sent him the parts of the statements from the companies which were not exempt from access.