Summaries of selected statements | 47 use the individual self-service solution, information about the options for submitting applications on behalf of others, links to relevant legislation and clearer information about which authority is responsible for the individual page and how the authority may be contacted. In addition, the Agency informed the Ombudsman that, in this connection, it would also increase its effort to inform the authorities about their responsibility in relation to information and guidance about their digital self-service solutions on www.borger.dk. The Ombudsman noted, among other things, that the Agency for Digitisation has a coordinating responsibility across the www.borger.dk portal. In his opinion the measures about which the Agency had informed him were very relevant. In the light of the statement from the Agency, the Ombudsman took no further action on the matter on the available basis. 2019-28. Prospective cost estimates in memorandum on Government’s climate and air package exempt from access The Ministry of Finance denied a journalist access to a memorandum from the Ministry for the Government’s Coordinating Committee on how much it was estimated the costs of the climate and air package would necessitate drawing on the fiscal space. The Ministry decided the case in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Information Act and the 1985 Access to Public Administration Files Act. The Ministry did release some of the information in the memorandum in accordance with the provision of the Access to Public Administration Files Act on the requirement to extract and grant access to information about factual circumstances. However, the Ministry declined to release the remaining information on the grounds that the information was specific cost estimates which were only forecasts subject to great uncertainty. The Ministry further stated that the information was the Ministry’s own estimates of how an actual course of events or factual circumstances would change and that the information could not be considered part of the factual basis of the case. The Ombudsman had no grounds for criticising the Ministry’s assessment that those parts of the memorandum that contained the forecasts and cost estimates were not subject to extraction. The Ombudsman essentially found that the memorandum did not contain any information which was to be released in addition to the information to which the journalist had already been granted access. In this connection, the Ombudsman stated that previous Ombudsman practice regarding extraction expressed in two Ombudsman cases from 2004 and 2005, respectively, could not be fully upheld. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the overriding principle must be that an authority’s specialist assessments and estimates etc. of the nature concerned regarding future circumstances cannot be considered to be subject to extraction. Ministry of Defence No statements on cases concluded in 2019 have been published. Ministry of Justice The following statements on cases concluded in 2019 have been published: 2019-3. Significant errors in press handling by Ministry of Justice did not serve to underpin confidence in Prosecution Service On 28 June 2018, the Minister of Justice endorsed a recommendation from the Director of Public Prosecutions to bring a case before the courts under section 78 of the Constitution to have a criminal gang dissolved as an association. The Ministry of Justice gave the news to two selected media as an exclusive, and it was agreed when the news could go public. The two media were sent a