APPENDIX B: SUMMARIES OF SELECTED CASES On the basis of the Committee’s detailed explanations, the Ombudsman stated that he did not have sufficient grounds for assuming that objective and relevant criteria had not been adequately included. Consequently, he could not criticise the content of the Committee’s decision. However, the Ombudsman did criticise the Literature Committee’s original wording of its refusal, particularly as it did not contain any indication at all of the criteria used. On this basis, he recommended that the Literature Committee arrange its future practice in such a way that grounds given for refusals met the requirements of the Public Administration Act. 2012-23. Interpretation of provision in section 86(1) of the Radio and Television Broadcasting Act on exemption of certain cases and documents from the Act on Public Access to Documents on Public Files On the basis of a specific case, the Ombudsman investigated a general question concerning the interpretation of the provision in section 86(1) of the Radio and Television Broadcasting Act, pursuant to which cases and documents concerning DR’s (the Danish Broadcasting Corporation) programming and its related business matters are exempt from the Act on Public Access to Documents on Public Files. The Ombudsman agreed with the DR that it is not, for instance, a condition for applying section 86(1) that in each individual instance access to the cases and documents in question would actually reveal anything more specific about DR’s programming or editorial processes. He stated, however, that there is a limit to how indirect a document’s relation to the actual programming can be if it is to be considered as covered by the provision. The Ombudsman had previously − based on the way in which DR itself had applied the provision in a specific case – taken as his basis that, despite the fact that section 86(1) of the Radio and Television Broadcasting Act mentions ‘cases and documents’, this must be understood to mean that only that information in a particular document which concerns the programming and its related business matters is exempt from the Act on Public Access to Documents on Public Files. When DR rejected this interpretation, the Ombudsman agreed with DR that it most likely follows from the provision’s wording and from the legislative history behind the Act that an assessment of the individual elements of information is not mandatory. He would therefore have no comments if DR applied a practice based on this interpretation. 105