SUMMARIES OF SELECTED STATEMENTS to be processed on the basis of the Environmental Information Act. The rule on ministerial advice and assistance, which the new Access to Public Administration Files Act had introduced, would consequently not be applicable as the Environmental Information Act referred to the old Access to Public Administration Files Act. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this question gave rise to some doubt, but he arrived at the conclusion that most of the information in the case pointed towards considering the information on the restructuring of the Danish Coastal Authority to be environmental information. Among other things, the Ombudsman emphasised that according to the Environmental Information Act, the fact that the measure ‘may’ affect environmental elements is sufficient to consider information regarding an administrative measure to be environmental information. In addition, the Ombudsman found it to be important that according to the practice of the European Court of Justice the concept of ‘environmental information’ had to be interpreted very broadly and that in actuality, the transfer of an authority to a new ministerial field of responsibility often had an effect on the Authority’s tasks, for example due to a change in priorities and political focus. On this basis, the Ombudsman recommended that the Ministry of Transport reopen the case and make a new decision pursuant to the Environmental Information Act. The Ministry then reopened the case and complied fully with the journalist’s request for access. 2014-29. EXTRACTION OF INFORMATION IN INTERNAL DOCUMENTS. INCREASED ACCESS TO FILES A journalist complained to the Ombudsman that the Ministry of Transport had rejected access to two documents (two presentation pages to the Transport Minister). The Ombudsman agreed with the Ministry of Transport that the extracted documents were internal documents and therefore in principle not subject to public access. However, in the opinion of the Ombudsman two lines in one of the documents were in principle subject to extraction duty. But since the information appeared from other documents given to the journalist in connection with the request for access to the documents, the Ombudsman could not criticise the Ministry’s refusal to give the journalist access. 141