118 annual report 2012 With reference to the wording and legislative history of section 13 of the Act on Protection against the Consequences of Industrial Injuries in force at the time, the Ombudsman stated that in his opinion the National Social Appeals Board had not established by a preponderance of probabilities that the man’s loss of working capacity was not a consequence of the industrial injury which he had suffered. On that basis, the Ombudsman recommended that the Board reconsider the case in the light of his statement. The protracted nature of the case and the circumstances etc. cited by the National Social Appeals Board as grounds that the man’s loss of working capacity was not in its opinion a consequence of his industrial injury occasioned the Ombudsman to make a more general statement on the possibility of including these circumstances etc. in a possible assessment of the degree of the man’s loss of working capacity. Q. PRIME MINISTER’S OFFICE The following cases concluded in 2012 were selected for publication in the Annual Report: 2012-13. Doubtful if verbal order to remain silent could be considered valid For a summary of the case, see under ‘E. Ministry of Justice’ 2012-24. Regard for the internal political decision process given as grounds for refusal of access to documents – ten years after the documents were prepared The Prime Minister’s Office refused to grant access to a number of documents relating to statements from the Ministry of Justice in connection with Denmark’s accession to various EU treaties. Two of the documents were exempted from access on the grounds that this was necessary in order to protect the internal political decision process (section 13(1)(vi) of the Act on Public Access to Documents on Public Files). As the Prime Minister’s Office had not stated which specific circumstances necessitated exempting the documents from access almost ten years after they had been prepared, the Ombudsman recommended that it reconsider its refusal of access to the two documents.