26 | Annual Report 2019 Factors ‘affecting or likely to affect the elements of the environment’ In order to make use of the Environmental Information Act, one must obviously be dealing with environmental information. As such, this sounds simple but sometimes it can – like the case about the technical journalist indicates – be a rather complicated exercise to ascertain what is environmental information within the meaning of the Act. Environmental information is defined in section 3 of the Environmental Information Act. Environmental information is not only information directly relating to the environment but also information about, for example, the state of the elements of the environment in soil, water or air. It also covers information about for example radiation, noise and discharges affecting or likely to affect the elements of the environment. More indirect information about the elements of the environment is also included. It follows from the definition of the law that information about measures or activities that affect or are likely to affect the environment is included. This can, for example, be legislation or plans. In a number of cases regarding access to documents, the Ombudsman has considered how the Environmental Information Act must be used. The most important cases are published on the Ombudsman’s website. Three specific cases are mentioned below: Access to MRSA information For some time, a number of pig farms had been tested to find out whether they were contaminated with the multiresistant Staphylococcus bacteria MRSA. Some journalists wanted to know which pig farms had been tested positive. The food safety authorities denied the request, among other things on the grounds that it would lead to stigmatisation of the pig farm owners and their families. The authorities had processed the case without considering whether it was environmental information. The Ombudsman found that it was of utmost importance for the assessment of the case whether the information was environmental information. The Ombudsman was of the opinion that if the pig herd was contaminated, the air in the pigsties would contain MRSA bacteria for which reason the Environmental Information Act should be used pursuant to section 3(1) (see factbox). The Ombudsman also stated that the Environmental Information Act is based on the fundamental view that the public should have a particularly extensive right of access to environmental information. And, in order for access to be denied, it had to be the granting of access itself that would result in stigmatisation. If the problem of stigmatisation would remain irrespective of whether access was granted, the request for access could not be denied. In consequence of this, the Danish Veterinary and Food Administration decided to give access to the information. (Case No. 2014-8). Consequently, information in regard to which pig herds had been contaminated with MRSA was to be considered environmental information – which in this case made a difference as to whether access could be granted. On the other hand, two other cases reflect that there are limits to what ‘environmental information’ covers. Even if the practice laid down by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) indicates that the term is broadly interpreted.