appendix d: summaries of selected cases considerable financial loss for the enterprises if the Ministry were to grant the journalist access. The Ombudsman stated that, according to circumstances, the provision in section 12(1)(ii) of the Act on Public Access to Documents on Public Files could allow a refusal to grant access in order to protect the copyright. However, if access were to be refused in order to protect the copyright, it would in the Ombudsman’s opinion require that it must be assumed that the request for access had an unlawful purpose. The burden of proof that a request for access must be assumed to have an unlawful purpose must rest with the public authority. Based on an overall assessment, it was the Ombudsman’s opinion that neither on the basis of the journalist’s statements during the case nor on the basis of his conduct during the case could the Ministry claim to have sufficient cause to assume that the elevation model would unlawfully be made public if the journalist were granted access. Consequently, the Ombudsman did not find that the Ministry had grounds for refusing the journalist access to the information contained in the database. (Case No. 2010-0306-1011) I. Ministry of HOUSING, URBAN AND RURAL AFFAIRS No cases concluded in 2011 were selected for publication in the Annual Report. J. Ministry of children and education The following case concluded in 2011 was selected for publication in the Annual Report: 18-1. Notification of decisions regarding support for students with disabilities or special needs It came to the Ombudsman’s attention that the former State Education Grant and Loan Scheme Agency (now the Agency for Higher Education and Educational Support) only announced its decisions on support for students with 113