Decisions

The Commissioner found that the Department had not complied with the requirements of the AIE Regulations and remitted the matter to the Department directing it to undertake a fresh decision-making process.

The Commissioner annulled the Council's decision. He directed the Council to undertake a fresh decision making process in respect of the appellant's request.

The Commissioner found that the information sought was environmental information, and that refusal was not justified by article 8(a)(iv), 9(2)(c) or 9(2)(d) of the AIE Regulations. On that basis, the Commissioner annulled the decision of the DPC and directed release of the information sought

The Commissioner found that: (i) the requested information is environmental information; (ii) article 7(3) of the Regulations did not apply in the circumstances of the case; (iii) article 9(2)(c) of the Regulations did not provide grounds for refusal of the information as the public interest in disclosure outweighed any interest in refusal; and (iv) the existence of the licensing agreement with OSI did not provide grounds for refusal of the request.

The Commissioner found that the DPC is a public authority within the definition provided by the AIE Regulations and that the information sought was environmental information. He found that refusal of the requested information was not justified under article 8(a)(iv), 9(1)(d), 9(2)(c) or 9(2)(d) of the AIE Regulations. He annulled the decision of the DPC and directed the release of the information sought.

The Commissioner found that the refusal was not justified for the reasons given. He annulled the decision of the Department and directed release of the information sought. He directed the Department to undertake a fresh decision-making process in respect of one part of the request

The Commissioner found that the interest in withholding limited sections of the draft EIS on the basis of article 9(2)(c) of the AIE Regulations outweighed the public interest in disclosure of the information and upheld daa's reliance on the exception in respect of those limited sections. He found that the public interest in disclosure of the remaining sections of the draft EIS (i.e. the majority of the draft EIS) outweighed the interest served by withholding it and accordingly directed partial release of the draft EIS.

The Commissioner annulled the decision of daa. He found that daa had not taken all reasonable steps to identify information relevant to the appellant’s request and directed that further searches be carried out to identify any additional information held by or on behalf of daa. The Commissioner found that a further 8 documents already identified by daa were within or partially within the scope of the request. He directed release of these documents, save for certain information which should be withheld under articles 8(a)(i) and 9(2)(c) of the AIE Regulations.

The Commissioner (i) found that a number of documents provided to his Office by the Council were outside the scope of the request, (ii) found that article 9(1)(b) provided grounds for disclosure of a limited number of documents within scope, and (iii) directed release of the remaining documents to the appellant.

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.