SUMMARIES OF SELECTED STATEMENTS E. MINISTRY OF DEFENCE The following statements on cases concluded in 2015 have been published: 2015-12. Refusal of access to document based on regards for Denmark’s security, defence and foreign policy interests. Would granting partial access compromise the intention behind the provisions on the protection of these interests? A journalist complained to the Ombudsman because the Ministry of Defence had refused to give access to a draft of the DDIS2 Intelligence Risk Assessment 2013 with reference to the provisions laid down in sections 31 and 32(2) of the Access to Public Administration Files Act on protection of Denmark’s security, defence and foreign policy interests. The Ministry of Defence did not wish to give access to the draft in full so that a comparison with the published risk assessment would show what had been changed. The Ministry also did not wish to hand over the unchanged – and thus published – parts of the draft since it would be possible to see by a corresponding comparison where changes to the draft had been made. In the opinion of the Ministry of Defence, the latter would compromise the intention behind the provisions mentioned; cf. section 34(i) of the Access to Public Administration Files Act. The Ombudsman did not find grounds for criticising the refusal of access given by the Ministry of Defence regarding those parts of the draft which were not identical to the published risk assessment and where the changes made were of a substantive nature and not merely proofreading changes. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the parts of the draft which were not identical to the published risk assessment but where the changes made were merely proofreading changes etc. could not be exempted from access. Moreover, the Ombudsman did not agree with the Ministry of Defence that it had been rendered sufficiently probable that granting access to the unchanged – and thus published – parts of the draft would compromise the intention behind sections 31 and 32(2) of the Access to Public Administration Files Act. On this basis, the Ombudsman recommended that the Ministry of Defence reopen the case and make a new decision. 2) Danish Defence Intelligence Service 131