SUMMARIES OF SELECTED STATEMENTS On that basis – and in the absence of further guidelines, including from the European Court of Justice – the Ombudsman found that he could not repudiate the Ministry’s assessment that – unlike in the two cases in which the Court had pronounced judgements – the two documents in the present case did not contain information on actual or foreseeable emissions, but that the information on emissions which could result from the Food and Agriculture Package was to be regarded as relating to ‘hypothetical emissions’ in the sense in which the term was used in the judgements by the Court. In this connection, the Ombudsman also gave weight to the fact that following the agreement on the Food and Agriculture Package, a number of discussions took place – also at the time when the case about access to the documents was being processed – with the European Commission which according to the available information resulted in changes to the overall package. Based on the available information, there was thus great uncertainty about the final result of the Food and Agriculture Package and therefore also about the emissions which could result from the Package. K. MINISTRY OF TAXATION The following statement on a case concluded in 2017 has been published: 2017-34. Processing times of Tax Appeals Agency of just over five months were too long for appeals against decisions on access of a party to a case to documents of the case A man lodged an appeal with the Tax Appeals Agency because in his opinion the Danish Customs and Tax Administration (SKAT) had not given him access to all documents of his tax case. In a letter to the man, the Agency informed him that it would take two years to process his appeal. On becoming aware of the letter, the Ombudsman opened a general investigation of the processing times of the Tax Appeals Agency for appeals lodged by citizens against decisions on access to documents of their own tax cases. In connection with the investigation, the Tax Appeals Agency informed the Ombudsman that its average processing time for such appeals concluded in 2016 was just over five months. 95