appendix d: summaries of selected cases Ombudsman that it would be most consistent with the guidance notes issued by the Ministry of Justice on the composition of administrative provisions that the executive order be corrected within a reasonable time frame so that the current legislative basis appear from its wording. In the Ombudsman’s opinion it was regrettable that while processing the man’s appeal the Ministry had not made it clear to him which items he did not have to pay a fee for. The Ombudsman also found it regrettable that the Veterinary and Food Administration and the Ministry had left it to the enterprise to determine the fee payable for extraction of information from the CHR. The Ombudsman informed the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries of his opinion and recommended that Ministry reopen the case and include the contents of his statement when making a new decision. (Case No. 2009-4630-301) 11-2. The identification requirement of the Environmental Information Act The Danish Food Industry Agency and the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries refused a man access to information about all production blocks in Denmark since 1992. The concept ‘production block’ is mainly used in connection with the administration of the EU hectare support schemes. The information was contained in a database at the Danish Food Industry Agency. The grounds for the authorities’ refusal were, among others, that the man’s request for access did not fulfil the identification requirement of the Environmental Information Act and the Act on Public Access to Documents on Public Files. The man complained to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman took as his basis that the information was covered by the Environmental Information Act. He stated that the provisions of the Act on Public Access to Documents on Public Files to which the Environmental Information Act referred should be interpreted in the light of the Environmental Information Directive. On that basis, the Ombudsman did not find that the part of the identification requirement of the Act on Public Access to Documents on Public Files regarding prior knowledge of the information − the subjective identification requirement − could be applied in exactly the same way in relation to requests for access to environmental information. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the man had identified his 117