108 annual report 2011 Public Administration Act. However, he found it a matter for criticism that the Department did not give adequate grounds in its decision. (Case No. 2010-0392-6012) 5-2. The Ombudsman’s jurisdiction in relation to energy companies A journalist complained to the Ombudsman about the case processing time of an energy company in a case concerning access to documents. The journalist had asked the energy company for access to a variety of information. The company consisted of several companies, some of which produced, transmitted or distributed electricity at a voltage of or above 500 V themselves and some of which did not, but were directly or indirectly the owners of the other companies. The complaint first raised the question of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction in relation to these companies. In the energy company’s opinion, only those companies which themselves produced, transmitted or distributed electricity at a voltage of or above 500 V were covered by section 1(2)(i) of the Act on Public Access to Documents on Public Files, while this was not the case for those companies which did not themselves produce, transmit or distribute electricity but were direct or indirect owners of the other companies. On the basis of the available information, the Danish Energy Association and the Ministry of Justice agreed. On the basis of the available information, the Ombudsman agreed that solely those companies which themselves produced, transmitted or distributed electricity at a voltage of or above 500 V were covered by section 1(2)(i) of the Act on Public Access to Documents on Public Files, while this was not the case for those companies which did not themselves produce, transmit or distribute electricity but were direct or indirect owners of the other companies. In pursuance of section 7(4) of the Ombudsman Act the Ombudsman was therefore only able to decide that his jurisdiction would extend to the former companies – but not to the latter. (Case No. 2010-5164-3000)