79 aPPENDIX D: summaries OF selected cases 1. Ministry of Employment The following case concluded in 2010 was selected for publication in the Annual Report: 1. Deletion of case documents in connection with request for access The National Directorate of Labour (the Directorate) had asked the National Institute of Social Research (the Institute) for a review of the effects of the socalled ‘300-hours rule’ which stipulates that a married couple on cash benefit must have had a minimum of 300 hours’ work within any two-year period in order to receive the benefit (section 13(8) of the Act on an Active Social Policy). In connection with this review, the Institute set up a project group. Two members of the group came from the Directorate. After the review had been concluded, a journalist asked for access to the Directorate’s documents concerning the review. While processing the request for access, the Directorate became aware that the Institute considered the project group to be a part of the Institute and saw representatives from other authorities who were members of the group not as representatives of the authorities in question but as personally appointed members working for the Institute. The Institute was of the opinion that documents exchanged between the members of the project group should be considered the Institute’s internal documents. Because of the Institute’s point of view, the Directorate did not consider whether the journalist was entitled to access to these documents, nor did the Directorate inform him of their existence. After processing the case concerning access, the Directorate deleted the documents. The Ombudsman stated that in his opinion, the documents of the project group had been passed on from the Institute and been included by the Directorate as Directorate documents. The documents could consequently not be considered internal within the meaning of the Access to Public Administration Files Act. He also stated that the Directorate could not suddenly decide that the documents were no longer to be considered external. At the time of the journalist’s request for access, the documents were therefore part of the Directorate’s case concerning the Institute’s review.