140 ANNUAL REPORT 2015 mation publicly available differed from making information about the future positioning of camera vans public in advance. Thus, despite the fact that the public would know that camera vans might be deployed in the same locations in future, the public’s knowledge would not be complete. On the available basis, the Ombudsman therefore did not find that the police force and the National Police could exempt the information under section 33(i) of the Access to Public Administration Files Act. The Ombudsman thus recommended that the National Police reopen the case and make a new decision. 2015-56. Refusal of access to documents about experience with the rules on logging of telephone and Internet traffic. Cases concerning legislation. The case concept A journalist complained to the Ombudsman because the Ministry of Justice had denied him access to documents about experience with the rules on logging of telephone and Internet traffic. The documents – which had been registered to four different cases – had been exempted on the grounds that they were part of cases about revision of the provisions in the Administration of Justice Act on logging, i.e. they were part of cases concerning legislation. The case occasioned the Ombudsman to express some views on the case concept and the registration of documents. The Ombudsman agreed with the Ministry of Justice that there was a ‘case concerning legislation’ within the meaning of the Access to Public Administration Files Act. However, the Ombudsman found that some of the exempted documents could not be considered to be part of the case concerning legislation. Instead, these documents were to be regarded as part of one or more cases about revision of the executive order on logging of telephone and Internet traffic, and they could therefore not be exempted from access under the provision on exemption of cases concerning legislation. The Ombudsman recommended that the Ministry reopen the case and make a new decision with respect to the documents in question.