SUMMARIES OF SELECTED STATEMENTS In the specific case, the Ombudsman was of the opinion that stating that the information which had not been extracted could be found in documents of 1½, 3½ and 27 pages, respectively, was not sufficiently precise, as this did not make it possible for the journalist to determine which specific information the Prime Minister’s Office had omitted to extract. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the Prime Minister’s Office should have referred to the specific pages and paragraphs containing the information. N. MINISTRY OF HEALTH The following statements on cases concluded in 2015 have been published: 2015-23. Extraction of information in internal document A journalist complained to the Ombudsman because he had received a partial refusal from the Danish Health Authority and the Ministry of Health to a request for access to four files. The files were part of a case regarding an information note which the Ministry had asked the Authority to prepare. The Ombudsman agreed with the Authority and the Ministry that two of the files in their entirety and e-mails contained in the other two files were internal documents covered by section 23(1)(i) of the Access to Public Administration Files Act and therefore as a general rule exempt from access. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, two of the files contained information that was subject to extraction. However, the information in one of these files was also included in other documents which were released to the journalist in response to his request for access, and the Ombudsman could therefore not criticise that the information was not extracted from the file. The other file (File No. 4) contained, among other things, a summary of statements from an authority other than the Danish Health Authority ‒ namely the Ministry of Health. These statements must be assumed to have been decisive for the contents of part of the Authority’s information note as they appeared to be decisions already made which the Authority subsequently was to carry out in the final preparation of the information note. In these circumstances, the Ombudsman found that it was most likely that the statements were to be regarded as information about the ‘factual basis’ of the case, and the information was also to be considered relevant to the case. 155