Decisions

The Commissioner (i) found that certain information held by the Department was outside the scope of the appellant's request; (ii) found that certain third party information could be redacted from the information disclosed; and (iii) directed release of the remaining information to the appellant.

The Commissioner found that the information at issue is "environmental information". He found that adequate searches had been conducted by ESB to identify and locate information but that certain information redacted by ESB comes within the scope of the appellant's request. He remitted the matter to ESB for further consideration.

The Commissioner found that the information at issue (i.e. payment information, the Schedule to a Wayleave Notice and a Deed of Easement relating to the placement of electricity lines by ESB on Coillte lands) was "environmental information". He remitted the matter to Coillte for further consideration.

The Commissioner found that it was reasonable to conclude that no relevant environmental information was held by or for the Council following adequate searches and thus, article 7(5) of the AIE regulations applied.

The Commissioner found that the information in question was "environmental information" and remitted the matter to the Council for further consideration

The Commissioner found that the Council was not justified in refusing access to the requested information in reliance on article 8(a)(iv) of the AIE Regulations.

The Commissioner found that: (1) daa holds information falling within the scope of the appellant's request; and (2) The information requested is environmental information.

The Commissioner found that the Council was had not justified its decision to refuse record 1 and part of record 3 under article 9(2)(c). He found that article 9(2)(c) applied to record 2 and part of record 3, but that the public interest favoured the release of those records, save for handwritten notes within record 3. The Commissioner found that the Council had not justified its decision to refuse further information on the basis that it had not provided evidence that it had conducted adequate searches.

The Commissioner found that the Department was justified in refusing access to the redacted information on the basis of the exception in article 9(1)(b) and that the interest in refusal outweighs the public interest in disclosure

The Commissioner found that the Department was justified in refusing access to the redacted information on the basis of the exception in article 9(1)(b) and that the interest in refusal outweighs the public interest in disclosure