Decisions

Summary of Commissioner's Decision: The Commissioner found that EirGrid was not justified in redacting the information. Accordingly, he varied EirGrid?s decision and required it to make the withheld information available to the appellant.

Summary of Commissioner's Decision: The Commissioner found that the request does not relate to information on emissions into the environment as per article 10(1). He found, after weighing the public interest in accordance with article 10(3), that article 9(1)(c) justifies the non-disclosure of the withheld information. As that was his finding, it was not necessary for him to consider article 8(a)(iv). Accordingly, the Commissioner did not require the Department to make environmental information available to the appellant.

Summary of Commissioner's Decision: In accordance with article 12(5) of the Regulations, the Commissioner reviewed TII's decision. The Commissioner found that TII was not justified in refusing the appellant's request. The Commissioner accordingly annulled TII's decision. However, as TII granted the appellant access to the information it requested during the course of the review, the Commissioner did not make any other findings on this appeal.

Summary of Commissioner's Decision: The Commissioner found that the Department was justified in refusing the request for the submission on the basis that it was not environmental information for the purposes of the AIE Regulations. The Commissioner also found that the Department was justified in refusing the request for the minutes on the basis that the information is not held by or for the Department.

Summary of Commissioner's Decision: The Commissioner found that Coillte's decision was justified by the reason given. He therefore affirmed Coillte's decision.

Summary of Commissioner's Decision: In accordance with article 12(5) of the Regulations, the Commissioner reviewed the HSE's decision on the appellant's request. The Commissioner noted that the HSE holds information which it did not take into account when making its decision on the AIE request. The Commissioner was satisfied that this new information falls within the scope of the appellant's request. On this basis, he found the HSE's decision to be inadequate, and therefore he annulled the HSE's internal review decision. The Commissioner noted that the HSE has now disclosed the newly identified information to the appellant in full. In circumstances where the Commissioner was satisfied with the HSE's account of the information it holds, he made no further recommendation on this appeal.

Summary of Commissioner's Decision: The Commissioner found that ESB Networks Business Unit is not a Public Authority within the meaning of the AIE Regulations. He was satisfied that it is a division of ESB, which is a Public Authority within the meaning of the AIE Regulations. Accordingly, he affirmed ESB's decision that ESB Networks Business Unit is not a Public Authority.

Summary of Commissioner's Decision: The Commissioner found that the Department was justified in refusing the appellant?s request for information on the grounds that it was acting in a legislative capacity within the meaning of article 3(2) of the AIE Regulations. As a result, the Department is not a public authority for the purposes of the AIE Regulations and is outside the scope of the AIE Regulations.

The Commissioner found that ESB?s decision was justified by the reason given. Accordingly, he affirmed ESB?s decision.

Summary of Commissioner's Decision: In accordance with article 12(5) of the Regulations, the Commissioner reviewed the Council's decision on the appellant's request. The Commissioner noted that the Council holds information which it did not take into account when making its decision on the AIE request. The Commissioner was satisfied that this new information fell within the scope of the appellant's request. On this basis, he found the Council's decision to be inadequate, and therefore annulled the Council's internal review decision. The Commissioner noted that the Council has now disclosed the newly identified information to the appellant. In circumstance where the Commissioner was satisfied with the Council's account of the information it holds, he made no further recommendation on this appeal.