Decisions

The Commissioner found that DAFM was not justified in relying on article 9(2)(c) of the AIE Regulations in the circumstances and directed release of the information requested

The Commissioner found that the information requested was held by and for UCD and annulled it decision to withhold the information on that basis. He remitted the matter to UCD for further consideration in accordance with the AIE Regulations

The Commissioner annulled the Department's decision on the ground that it had not conducted adequate searches in an effort to locate all relevant environmental information. He directed it to undertake a fresh decision-making process in respect of the appellant's request.

The Commissioner found that: (a) the information at issue was environmental information, within the meaning of article 3(1) of the AIE Regulations; and (b) the Department was not justified in refusing to process the appellant's request, and as such the request was inadequately answered.

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

The Commissioner found that the request was not dealt with in accordance with articles 3(2) and 4(5) of the AIE Directive and articles 7(2) and 11(3) of the AIE Regulations and that this failure was not justified

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

The Commissioner found that the refusal of access to a copy of School B's most-up-to date risk assessment was justified on the basis that article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations applied to it. He also found that refusal of access to a copy of School B's insurance policy was justified on the basis that it was not environmental information within the meaning of article 3(1)(b) or 3(1)(f) of the AIE Regulations

The Commissioner found that the information at issue was environmental information, within the meaning of article 3(1) of the AIE Regulations

The Commissioner found that the RSA was not justified in refusing access to the majority of information contained in the motor expense records held by it, which fell within the scope of the request on the basis it was not environmental information. He found that the majority of information in those records was environmental information within the meaning of article 3(1)(c) of the definition. Accordingly, he annulled the RSA's decision in respect of that part of the records and expressed his expectation that it would make a new decision on that part of the request in accordance with the AIE Regulations. In relation to the remaining information in the motor expense records, the Commissioner affirmed the RSA's refusal of access to that information on the basis that it was not environmental information within the meaning of the definition in article 3(1).