130 ANNUAL REPORT 2014 Administration for access to information about which of the tested pig farms were contaminated. The Administration denied the request, specifically on the grounds that granting access would increase the risk of stigmatisation of the pig farm owners and their families. The journalists complained to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman said that the information about which pig farms were contaminated was environmental information and that the access request had to be processed according to the Environmental Information Act. It was the Ombudsman’s opinion that it could not be ruled out that the population’s reaction to disease in animals which people are in contact with and can get contaminated by might reach a level where the purpose to avoid stigmatisation of the people involved can be served by the provisions in section 13(1)(vi) of the Access to Public Administration Files Act, cf. the Environmental Information Act regulations. However, the Ombudsman did find that the authorities had not provided a sufficient basis to exempt the information from access according to the regulations. In that context, the Ombudsman pointed out that the provisions in section 13(1)(vi) of the Access to Public Administration Files Act have a limited scope of application, that there is especially extensive access according to the regulations of the Environmental Information Act, and that, according to the regulations, it has to be precisely the granting of access to the information that entails or supports stigmatisation. Therefore, there are substantial requirements for documentation of the need to avoid stigmatisation, etc. if such needs are to provide grounds for denying access. M. MINISTRY OF HEALTH The following statements on cases concluded in 2014 have been published: 2014-1. DECISIONS CRITICISING HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS WERE MADE PUBLIC UP TO 1.5 YEARS LATER. THE STATUTORY 2-YEAR-PERIOD OF PUBLICATION COULD NOT BE REDUCED The Disciplinary Board of the National Health Service (the Board) had in a number of cases made decisions where the Board criticised health care professionals for serious or repeated negligence, etc. The National Agency for Patients’ Rights and Complaints (the Agency) which is secretariat for the Board had by mistake not published the decisions immediately after they were made. Instead, they were published up to 1.5 years later. In connection with the delayed publishing, the Agency informed the health care professionals in question that the decisions henceforth would remain public on the relevant websites for 2 years after the time of publishing.