SUMMARIES OF SELECTED STATEMENTS The Ombudsman referred, among other things, to the fact that the principle of increased access also applies to documents and information covered by section 24 of the Access to Public Administration Files Act. Consequently, in cases where there is not ‒ as stated in the explanatory notes ‒ a ‘real and legitimate’ need for exempting information from access, disclosure should be considered. In this context, the Ombudsman pointed out that the relevant eight consultation responses were of a quite varied nature, among other things in relation to the extent and content of the comments made by the individual ministries. The Ministry of Justice subsequently informed the Ombudsman that, on the basis of the Ombudsman’s processing of the case, the Ministry had found occasion to consider whether the relevant consultation responses could now be given to the journalist, and that the Ministry had decided in this context to hand over the consultation responses according to the principle of increased access. It appeared that in making this new decision, the Ministry of Justice had attached particular importance to the time that had passed since the Bill on which the consultation responses were made had been introduced before Parliament. Based on the new decision by the Ministry of Justice, the Ombudsman discontinued his investigation of the case. 2015-27. Dismissal of tenured civil servant with availability pay instead of relocation The Ministry of Justice dismissed a tenured civil servant due to cutbacks and elimination of jobs in the police district where he served. In connection with the dismissal, the civil servant got the right to availability pay for three years and subsequent pension. The civil servant complained to the Ombudsman because there were vacant positions outside the police district, but within his field of employment, to which he would have liked to be relocated. On the basis of statements obtained from the National Police, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Finance and the Agency for Modernisation, the Ombudsman did not find grounds for criticising that the civil servant had been dismissed rather than relocated to one of the vacant positions. 135