Decisions

Having carried out a review in accordance with article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, the Commissioner varied the decision of the Department. He found that article 8(a)(iv) of the AIE Regulations applied to the majority of the records at issue. He found that the Department's decision to refuse access to certain records or parts thereof was not justified and directed the release of the information contained therein.

The Commissioner noted that the IAA's refusal of the request was a deemed refusal. Since deemed refusals are refusals without reasons, the Commissioner found that refusal was not justified and he annulled it. He decided that it would not be appropriate to require the IAA to release specific information since it has not been established that the IAA holds relevant information. Noting that the IAA said that it is possible that it holds such information, the Commissioner remitted the matter to the IAA for a fresh search and decision. He noted the IAA's stated willingness to provide the appellant with the requested information if it is found.

Having carried out a review in accordance with article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, the Commissioner varied the decision of EirGrid. He found that articles 8(a)(i) and 9(1)(c) of the AIE Regulations applied to certain parts of the records relating to the grid connection between the proposed solar farm and the electricity system. He found that EirGrid's decision to refuse access to other relatively small parts of the records was not justified and directed the release of that information.

The Commissioner affirmed EirGrid’s decision, while varying its reasons. He found that the withheld information is environmental information within the meaning of article 3, but that refusal was not justified on the ground of internal communications (article 9(2)(d)). He found that refusal of access to some of the information was justified on the ground of commercial confidentiality (article 9(1)(c)) and refusal of access to the remaining information was justified because disclosure would adversely affect the confidentiality of the proceedings of public authorities (article 8 (a)(iv)).

The Commissioner found that the CBI was justified in refusing access to the information requested on the basis that the information concerned is not environmental information within the meaning of the definition in article 3(1) of the AIE Regulations. Accordingly, he held that the CBI was not obliged to process the appellant’s request for access to the information and that he had no further jurisdiction in relation to the matter

The Commissioner found that the ICC is a public authority within the meaning of article 3(1)(b) of the public authority definition and that the information sought is environmental information under article 3(1)(c) of the environmental information definition. He annulled the ICC’s decision and directed that a fresh decision-making process be undertaken in accordance with the AIE Regulations

The Commissioner found that the Department was justified in refusing access to the 2014 licence application on the basis that article 8(a)(iv) of the AIE Regulations in conjunction with section 29 of the FOI Act. He affirmed the Department?s decision accordingly

The Commissioner found, after taking account of the provisions of articles 8(a)(i) and 10 of the AIE Regulations and article 4(2) of the AIE Directive, that the EPA was justified in refusing access to the requested information

Having carried out a review in accordance with article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, the Commissioner found that the Department was justified in refusing access to the records or parts thereof, under article 8(a)(iv) of the AIE Regulations on the basis of legal professional privilege. The Commissioner affirmed the Department?s decision

Having carried out a review in accordance with article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, the Commissioner varied the decision of the Department. He found article 8(a)(iv) of the AIE Regulations applied to certain parts of the redactions made from the Felling SOP document. He found that the Department?s decision to refuse access to other redacted parts of the document was not justified and directed the release of that information