86 | Annual Report 2018 In connection with the Ombudsman’s investigation of the case, the harbour expressed its regret that it had not been mindful of the Environmental Information Act when making its decision. The harbour subsequently stated that it considered the information in some of the material to be subject to the Environmental Information Act. However, the harbour found that there was no right of access to the information under that Act either. The Ombudsman found that the information in the material which the harbour did not consider to contain environmental information was in fact environmental information, and that therefore also the question of access to that information was to be considered under the Environmental Information Act. Some of the material in question contained information about budget figures for annual revenue and expenditure several years into the future for the new harbour facilities. Other material contained information about the lease of a site which was part of the new harbour facilities, including information about the use of the leased site and the lease period. Still other material contained information about a credit agreement between the harbour and KommuneKredit (an association with the objective of granting loans to municipalities and regions) relating to the financing of the new harbour facilities. With regard to the harbour’s refusal of access to the information contained in the material which it considered to be subject to the Environmental Information Act, the Ombudsman was of the opinion that the harbour had not made an adequate assessment of whether access to the information could be denied under the Environmental Information Act. On that basis, the Ombudsman recommended that the harbour reopen the case in its entirety and make a new, overall decision on access under the Environmental Information Act. 2018-6. Refusal of access to information about fee for providing speaking announcements to public transport operator A public transport operator refused a request from a journalist for access to information about the size of the fee received by a production company for providing speaking announcements for public transport. In its decision, the public transport operator referred to section 30 paragraph (2) of the Access to Public Administration Files Act. The Ombudsman had no grounds for repudiating the operator’s assessment that there would be a risk of the announcer and his production company suffering financial loss of some significance if information about the fee was released to the journalist. Overall, the Ombudsman could therefore not criticise the operator’s refusal of access to the information. The Ombudsman explained that there is a clear presumption that disclosure of information which falls within the scope of section 30 paragraph (2) will involve an obvious risk of significant financial loss to the enterprise or person to which or whom the information relates. In this connection, the Ombudsman pointed out that the public transport operator had contacted the production company several times for details of the risk of financial loss which would be involved in disclosing the information. The production company had explained to the operator, among other things, that a specific fee was agreed for each job for which the company/announcer was contracted, and that disclosure of the size of the fee agreed for one job could very likely weaken the company’s hand in negotiations about the announcer’s fees for future jobs. The production company also stated that it always regarded this type of information as confidential information on business matters/matters pertaining to operations, which it never disclosed to third parties.