SUMMARIES OF SELECTED STATEMENTS of dispensing chemists separate from other business with pharmaceuticals. The Ombudsman therefore recommended that the Danish Health Authority reopen the case. 2015-42. Access to correspondence between Danish Health Authority and Ministry of Health. Ministerial advice and assistance. Extraction of information A scientist complained to the Ombudsman because he had received a partial refusal from the Ministry of Health of access to correspondence between the Danish Health Authority and the Ministry about a proposal from the Government to introduce health checks for men with little education. The Ombudsman agreed with the Ministry that the documents – except one, which consisted of notes from a telephone conversation – were to be regarded as ministerial advice and assistance documents covered by the provision in section 24(1)(i) of the Access to Public Administration Files Act. Some of the documents were different versions of a memorandum, ‘Targeted Health Checks’, which was subsequently submitted to the Government’s Coordinating Committee. The authorities had based their assessment of whether information was to be extracted under section 28 of the Access to Public Administration Files Act on the last version of the memorandum which had been exchanged between them. They found no grounds for extracting information from earlier versions of the memorandum because some of the information in those versions had not been included in the last version exchanged between them or in the final memorandum, which was submitted to the Coordinating Committee. In the Ministry’s opinion, the information was not relevant to the case within the meaning of section 28 of the Access to Public Administration Files Act simply because it had not been included in the final memorandum. The Ombudsman was of the opinion that this was too narrow an interpretation of the concept of relevance compared to what was stated in the explanatory notes to the Act. The fact that some information had not been included in the final memorandum did not in the Ombudsman’s opinion necessarily mean that that information was irrelevant. The question of relevance was to be determined on the basis of a specific assessment, and in this connection it must be kept in mind that it is not only information forming the basis for the authorities’ decision which may be relevant. 157