SUMMARIES OF SELECTED CASES Service would – in accordance with the authorities’ established practice – expressly state that a decision on a visa penalty period does not apply to any accompanying underage children. The Ombudsman did not find grounds for criticising that the wife had been refused a visa and given a five-year penalty period. 2013-19. Right of access to information about transfer from open to closed prison. The case concept A state prison decided that an inmate was to be excluded from association with other inmates and transferred from an open to a closed prison. Furthermore, the state prison withdrew the inmate’s right to temporary leave. The inmate’s lawyer then asked for access to all case files. The state prison gave the lawyer access to the files concerning the decision to withdraw the inmate’s right to temporary leave but not to the files concerning his exclusion from association and his transfer to a closed prison. The Department of Prisons and Probation concurred. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the decision to withdraw the inmate’s right to temporary leave was a separate case from those of the decisions to exclude him from association and to transfer him from an open to a closed prison. As these decisions were covered by section 9(4) of the Public Administration Act, there were no grounds for criticising the authorities’ decisions concerning access to the files. 2013-23. Family reunification with spouse with two ­children in Denmark from a previous relationship A Danish man complained because the Immigration Service and the Ministry for Justice had refused his wife a residence permit because he had not provided financial security as required by section 9(4) of the Aliens Act. The authorities had also refused his wife residence under EU regulations. In Denmark, the man had visitation rights to his two underage children from a previous relationship, who were eight and ten years old at the time. 129