Summaries of selected statements | 57 The authorities’ conception of the law in this connection did not give the Ombudsman cause for comment. However, the woman pointed out that she had contacted her unemployment insurance fund for guidance on voluntary early retirement and eligibility for a tax-free bonus when she stopped her part-time job to work solely in her husband’s firm, and that the unemployment insurance fund had informed her that her work would count towards her eligibility as long as she continued to pay her membership fee. The woman therefore found that her unemployment insurance fund was responsible for her losing her eligibility for a tax-free bonus. The National Social Appeals Board criticised the guidance which the unemployment insurance fund had given the woman. However, the Board was of the opinion that it could not order the unemployment insurance fund to redress the adverse effects of its inadequate guidance – in other words place the woman in a position as if she had been given correct guidance by her unemployment fund and had acted accordingly. The Ombudsman pointed out that the woman’s unemployment insurance fund did not – either at the time of its guidance or today – offer the type of unemployment insurance which she would presumably have taken out if she had been given correct guidance. Thus, if the unemployment insurance fund had guided the woman correctly at the time, this would not have resulted in her taking out full-time unemployment insurance with her unemployment insurance fund. On that basis, ordering the unemployment insurance fund to place the woman financially in a position as if she had taken out full-time unemployment insurance at the time of its guidance would be tantamount to ordering it to pay damages to the woman for the loss she might have suffered as a result of the guidance which she had been given. As such an order was not a response which was available to the National Social Appeals Board within the field of unemployment insur- ance, the Ombudsman had no grounds for repudiating the Board’s assessment of the question of redress of the adverse effects of the guidance given by the unemployment insurance fund. Prime Minister’s Office The following statement on a case concluded in 2019 has been published: 2019-12. Material about construction of new district in Copenhagen exempt from access A journalist asked the Prime Minister’s Office for access to material about the project to construct an artificial island, Lynetteholmen, off the coast of Copenhagen. The Prime Minister’s Office considered some of the documents to which the journalist had requested access to be part of a case concerning legislation and therefore exempt from access. The reason why the Prime Minister’s Office found that there was a case concerning legislation within the meaning of the Access to Public Administration Files Act was that in order that the construction project could be carried out, it was a prerequisite that a number of bills be introduced. The Ombudsman agreed with the Prime Minister’s Office that the case was to be decided under the Environmental Information Act and the 1985 Access to Public Administration Files Act. In the Ombudsman’s opinion there was a case concerning legislation within the meaning of the Access to Public Administration Files Act at the time when the documents to which the journalist had been denied access were produced. In this connection, the Ombudsman gave particular weight to the fact that the project had a specific, delimited content as the overall objective of the project was to construct a new district in Copenhagen, and to