Decisions

The Commissioner found that the Department was justified in not providing access to certain information because it did not hold the information. He found that refusal to provide access to certain other information was not justified on the ground of articles 8(a)(iv) or 9(1)(c) and he required the Department to release it

The Commissioner found that the Council's refusal of access to the correspondence regarding the RSA reports for the KCAS under article 8(a)(iv) of the AIE Regulations was not justified. Accordingly, he required the Council to disclose the correspondence to the appellant

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 9(1)(c) of the AIE Regulations applied to certain excerpts in two of the records at issue. He found that the Department’s decision to refuse access to the remaining records was not justified and therefore directed the release of the information.

Having carried out a review in accordance with article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, the Commissioner found that the Department’s decision to refuse access to the records sought was not justified and therefore directed the release of the information.

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

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.

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)).