146 annual report 2013 T. MINISTRY OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS AND THE INTERIOR The following case concluded in 2013 was selected for publication as part of the Annual Report: 2013-26. Unjustified refusal pursuant to section 12(1)(ii) of the Access to Public Administration Files Act of access to price estimate from telecommunications company In 2011, a municipality received a letter from a telecommunications company with a proposal for what the company considered to be a reasonable price/rent level within the municipality. The proposal concerned rent in respect of land and buildings for digital telecommunications infrastructure. In its proposal, the telecommunications company questioned the municipality’s present price structure, which the municipality had decided upon in 2008, and which had resulted in a twofold increase of the rent level. By virtue of his job, an advisory consultant in the field gained knowledge of the existence of the letter, to which he subsequently requested access from the municipality. The municipality refused him access – completely initially. After the consul­tant had brought the case to the Regional State Administration of Copenhagen, the municipality allowed him access to the letter from the telecommunications company. However, the municipality had blanked out the amounts stated in the letter (referred to below as ‘the price estimate’), with reference to the statement from the Regional State Administration of Copenhagen as the supervisory authority for the municipality. The Ombudsman agreed with the Regional State Administration of Copen­ hagen that by virtue of its nature, the price estimate was covered by section 12(1)(ii) of the Access to Public Administration Files Act (information on operating or business procedures). On the other hand, the Ombudsman did not find, based on the information available, that the municipality had proved on a balance of probabilities that granting access to the price estimate would have any significant financial implications for the telecommunications company. Therefore, the Ombudsman recommended that the case be resumed and a new decision be made.