SUMMARIES OF SELECTED STATEMENTS work was evaluated in the report as their professional reputation could otherwise be affected. Finally, the authorities stated that it was necessary to protect the researchers who had carried out the evaluation. The Ombudsman stated that the provision in section 33 paragraph (5) of the Access to Public Administration Files Act is intended to have a narrow scope of application and is therefore only applicable if non-disclosure is to be regarded as clearly required and there is an obvious risk that the interests worthy of protection would otherwise be significantly damaged. The Ombudsman was of the opinion that in an assessment whether access to information could be denied under section 33 paragraph (5), the need to ensure that the research carried out at a university is of sufficient quality could be deemed a legitimate interest to protect. At the same time, however, the Ombudsman was of the opinion that the argument put forward by the authorities that the DTU would not in future be able to ensure that it could obtain reliable, critical expert evaluations of research carried out at the University was too general and undocumented: their argument was not substantiated by, for instance, statements from the researchers who had carried out the evaluation or by specific information about what is common practice with regard to confidentiality in relation to evaluations of research. The Ombudsman therefore recommended that the Danish Agency for Insti­ tutions and Educational Grants reopen the case in order to reconsider the request for access to the report. 2017-28. Environmental information was ‘information on emissions into the environment’ A journalist asked a university for access to information about the identities of six farmers in whose soils elevated concentrations of zinc and copper had been found according to a report prepared by the university. He also asked for access to information about the identities of two piglet producers whose slurry had been found to contain zinc and copper according to the report. The university denied the journalist access, and the Danish Agency for Higher Education (now the Danish Agency for Institutions and Educational Grants) made a statement in its capacity as regulatory authority and in essence concurred with the university’s decision. The authorities considered the case in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Information Act and 103