94 ANNUAL REPORT 2017 In addition, the Ombudsman found it regrettable that the Board had not on its own initiative acknowledged receipt of the journalist’s appeal and kept him informed of the progression of the case. 2017-29. Environmental information was not ‘information on emissions into the environment’ A journalist asked the Ministry of Environment and Food for access to all its documents concerning the Food and Agriculture Package which had been sent or otherwise submitted to the Government’s Committee on Economic Affairs or the Government’s Coordinating Committee. The Ministry considered the journalist’s request under the provisions of the Environmental Information Act and the 1985 Access to Public Administration Files Act. The Ministry’s decision included a partial refusal – with reference to section 10 paragraph (1) of the 1985 Access to Public Administration Files Act on documents prepared for meetings of ministers, among other types of documents – of access to two documents. The documents concerned, among other things, the expected effects of various aspects of the regulation of the release of nitrogen proposed in the Food and Agriculture Package. A central question in the case was whether the information contained in the two documents was to be regarded as ‘information on emissions into the environment’, as section 2(5) of the Environmental Information Act states that, among other provisions, the provision in section 10 paragraph (1) of the 1985 Access to Public Administration Files Act is not applicable to ‘information on emissions into the environment’ to the extent refusal of access would be contrary to the provisions in Article 4(2) of the Environmental Information Directive. Two judgements by the European Court of Justice stated that the concept of ‘emissions into the environment’ comprises not only actual emissions of a substance or product into the environment but also foreseeable emissions of the substance or product under normal or realistic conditions of use. However, the concept does not include emissions which are purely hypothetical. In the Ombudsman’s opinion it could be difficult to liken the situation in the two cases in which the European Court of Justice had pronounced judgements to the situation in the present case.