Summaries of selected statements | 61 The Ombudsman had no grounds for repudiating the Ministry’s view that it was not required to reopen cases about humanitarian residence permits in which the decision had been made and the applicant deported prior to the judgement by the European Court of Human Rights. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the assessment of this issue should be left to the courts, and in future, when considering specific complaints, he would be aware of the possibility of recommending that the complainant be granted free legal aid to have the issue considered by the courts. The Ombudsman had no comments on the criteria according to which the Ministry had determined which overall categories of cases to review in order to rectify any errors made. In addition, he had no comments on the criteria or methods which had been used to identify the individual cases which were reviewed. Further, the Ombudsman stated that in his opinion the Ministry had made sufficient and relevant efforts to contact persons who had been deported or had otherwise left the country. The Ombudsman criticised that the Ministry adjusted the guidance on www.nyidanmark.dk on the conditions for obtaining a humanitarian residence permit too late. age their interests in relation to the case with the Committee. The Ombudsman concurred with the Ministry’s view that cases with the Committee fell outside the scope of section 27 paragraph (4) of the Access to Public Administration Files Act on litigation. However, the Ombudsman did not on the available basis concur with the view of the authorities that the Board could refuse access to the correspondence under section 32(2) of the Access to Public Administration Files Act on foreign policy interests. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the provision was not applicable to interests in judicial proceedings, and this was also true of interests in proceedings with an international complaints body. With regard to the Board’s reference to section 33 paragraph (5) of the Act, the Ombudsman stated that it could well be argued that the interests which section 27 paragraph (4) is intended to protect could be of some significance in the assessment whether access could be denied under section 33 paragraph (5). However, the right of access may only be restricted under that provision if a specific assessment shows that non-disclosure of information is clearly required. The Ministry explained to the Ombudsman how it would ensure that a similar situation did not occur again, among other things via a reorganisation of its procedures with a view to closer monitoring of international judgements. The Board (or the Ministry of Justice) did not appear to have made such an assessment. 2019-24. Refusal by board of access to procedural documents to be used by Ministry of Justice in case with international complaints body The Immigration Appeals Board had refused a request from a practising lawyer for access to correspondence which included draft procedural documents to be used by the Ministry of Justice in connection with a complaint case with the UN Human Rights Committee against the Danish state. The authorities stated that granting the lawyer access to the correspondence would dam- The Ombudsman further called the Board’s attention to, among others, the provision in section 30 paragraph (1) of the Act as a substantial amount of information about the private circumstances of individuals was contained in the documents which had been withheld. The Ombudsman pointed out in this connection that the lawyer’s request for access had been made on behalf of persons who were not involved in the specific complaint case with the Committee. On that basis, the Ombudsman recommended that the Board reopen the case.