16 ANNUAL REPORT 2013 Another vulnerable social group consists of children and juveniles placed in, for instance, 24-hour residential care facilities, accommodation facilities and foster families. A number of monitoring visits revealed that various coercive measures are used without a clear legal basis towards the juveniles – such as having to submit a urine sample on suspicion of drug use, and restrictions on their access to mobile telephone, computer and Internet. We raised the issue in general terms with the Minister for Social Affairs, with the result that a committee was appointed to report on the problems and propose new legislation. A clarification of this difficult issue is needed, and it is also fundamentally right that Parliament gets the opportunity to take a position on the matter. Cases involving access to public files were also a comparatively large part of our caseload in 2013. A much-discussed case concerned the right of the Danish Union of Teachers to access to the documents of a working group tasked by the public employers with preparing for the collective bargaining negotiations with the teachers (2013-10). One of the reasons stated for denying the Union access was that the working group’s documents had not been part of the preparations for the collective bargaining negotiations proper. This appeared surprising to us and caused us to say, among other things, that the case left the impression that plans might have been made and steps taken precisely with the aim to avoid having to give access to files. We pointed out that such ‘creative thinking’ to avoid giving access cannot ordinarily be considered unlawful, but that it is very unfortunate if it leads to inappropriate ‘manoeuvres’, such as not making sufficient use of relevant documents. Another case on access to public files resulted in severe criticism of the Ministry of Taxation (2013-15). A journalist wanted access to the 2013 production plan of the Danish Customs and Tax Administration, and he wrote, among other things, to the Ministry of Taxation that the Ministry could expect to ‘be saddled with an Ombudsman case’ if he did not receive the entire plan asap. This caused the Ministry’s special advisor to telephone the journalist and, among other things, say (while the journalist was recording the conversation) that the journalist had ‘strongly provoked him’ and that he perceived it as ‘very aggressive’ to be ‘threatened’ with an Ombudsman case. The special advisor left the overall impression that the journalist’s approach could influence the future working relationship between the journalist and the Ministry of Taxation. In addition, the journalist never did get a reply to his request for access. We characterised this as ‘completely unacceptable conduct’ towards a journalist who was using his right to seek access to public files and notifying the Ministry of his intention to use his right to complain to the Ombudsman. We