104 ANNUAL REPORT 2017 the 1985 Access to Public Administration Files Act. Reference was made to, among other provisions, section 13(1) paragraphs (5) and (6) of the 1985 Access to Public Administration Files Act. In the Ombudsman’s opinion access to the information concerned could not be denied with reference to the provision in section 13(1) paragraph (5) of the 1985 Access to Public Administration Files Act. A central question in the case was thus whether the information was to be regarded as ‘information on emissions into the environment’, as section 2(5) of the Environmental Information Act states that, among other provisions, the provision in section 13(1) paragraph (6) of the 1985 Access to Public Administration Files Act is not applicable to ‘information on emissions into the environment’ to the extent refusal of access would be contrary to the provisions in Article 4(2) of the Environmental Information Directive. Two judgements by the European Court of Justice stated that the concept of ‘emissions into the environment’ comprises not only actual emissions of a substance or product into the environment but also foreseeable emissions of the substance or product under normal or realistic conditions of use. However, the concept does not include emissions which are purely hypothetical. In addition, under the two judgements, the public must have access not only to information on emissions as such – i.e. information concerning the nature, composition, quantity, date and place of those emissions – but also to information concerning the medium to long-term consequences of those emissions on the environment, including information relating to residues in the environment. In the Ombudsman’s opinion information about the location of the sites where zinc and copper had been found in the soil and the sites where the slurry had been found to contain zinc and copper was thus ‘information on emissions into the environment’. On that basis, the Ombudsman recommended that the Danish Agency for Institutions and Educational Grants reopen the case and – in the light of what he had stated – make a new decision.