116 annual report 2011 the Ombudsman was of the opinion that the citizens’ requests for access were so specific that they fulfilled the identification requirement pursuant to section 2(1) of the Environmental Information Act, cf. section 4(3) of the Act on Public Access to Documents on Public Files. Regarding access to information about veterinarians’ authorisation numbers, the Ombudsman stated that the Ministry had not specified how handing over such information would entail an obvious risk of such harm as to warrant refusal of access pursuant to section 2(1) of the Act on Access to Environmental Information and section 2(1), cf. section 12(1)(ii) of the Act on Public Access to Documents on Public Files. The Ombudsman recommended that the Ministry of Science, Innovation and Higher Education reopen the case. (Case No. 2009-3430-301) L. Ministry of food, agriculture and fisheries The following cases concluded in 2011 were selected for publication in the Annual Report: 11-1. Fee charged for extraction of information from the Central Husbandry Register The Veterinary and Food Administration decided that a man was entitled to access to the Central Husbandry Register (CHR), except for confidential information. In its decision the Veterinary and Food Administration left it to its partner – a privately owned enterprise – to execute access to the CHR and to calculate and charge a fee. The man complained to the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries and later to the Ombudsman. The subject of his complaint was, among other things, the enterprise’s demand that the man first accept the inclusion in the fee of a number of items within a set amount. First, the Ombudsman pointed out that according to its own contents the executive order on payment for the release of information from the General Agricultural Register/Central Husbandry Register had been issued pursuant to three repealed enabling acts. The executive order’s provisions were upheld through acts which were later adopted. It was, however, the opinion of the