144 ANNUAL REPORT 2014 information in question would weaken the municipality’s negotiating position in connection with subsequent entering of contracts concerning the leased property. Thus, the rejection of access to the files could ensure the municipality’s position as contractual party. The Ombudsman stated that the information was about a contract already entered and that the use of section 33(iii) of the Access to Public Administration Files Act had to be based on more than the mere general risk that no market quotations would be received at (possible) future tenders. It did not appear from the information available in the case that the assessments by the municipality and the State Administration were based on other information than a general risk. Consequently, the Ombudsman did not consider the State Administration’s assessment to be adequately reasoned. Therefore, the Ombudsman did not find that the municipality could exempt the information from the right of access to public files pursuant to section 33(iii) of the Access to Public Administration Files Act. As a consequence hereof, the Ombudsman asked the State Administration to resume the processing of the case. The case was subsequently resumed, and the journalist gained access to the information in question. 2014-16. NOT ENTITLED TO DATA EXTRACTION FROM SECURITY LOG OF THE CENTRAL NATIONAL REGISTER (CPR) A man complained to the Ombudsman because the Ministry of Economic Affairs and the Interior had refused him access to the security log of the central national register (CPR) regarding inquiries about him in the CPR system. The Ministry had refused the man’s request for access on the grounds that though section 11 of the Access to Public Administration Files Act says that anyone can demand that an administrative authority carries out and hands over a compilation of existing information in the Authority’s database (so-called data extraction), the section does not entitle a person to be given an extraction from the CPR’s security log.