86 annual report 2010 almond content of 1.6 per cent, as that designation required a higher almond content. The decision by the Veterinary and Food Administration came to form the basis for the authorities’ future practice regarding the requirements for the almond content of almond cakes. The company which was not considered to be a party to the ‘almond cake case’ then complained to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman took as his basis that the decision in the ‘almond cake case’ did not have any legal consequences for the company wanting party status and that, consequently, the company’s interest in the case was secondary and indirect. In addition, there were a number of other companies which probably also had an interest in the case, and the company complaining to the Ombudsman did not appear to be affected to any special extent. On this basis the Ombudsman concurred with the Veterinary and Food Administration that the company was not a party to the case. (Case No. 2009-2324-309) 12. M  inistry OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND DEVELOPMENT The following case concluded in 2010 was selected for publication in the Annual Report: 1. A  ccess to names of preliminary case processors The Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation and the Ministry for Science, Technology and Innovation refused a party to a decision case access to the names of two preliminary case processors. The Ombudsman opened an own-initiative case vis-à-vis the authorities. The authorities stated, among other things, that research committees receive a large number of applications and that it is not possible for all members of a committee to process all applications in detail. For that reason, the committees often arrange to have each case prepared by (usually two) preliminary case processors who are members of the committee. The preliminary case processors’ job is to study the application so thoroughly that they are able to present the application to the committee for consideration and decision at a subsequent