Decisions

The Commissioner found that ESB was not justified in refusing to accept any parts of the AIE request. He therefore found that a decision refusing parts 1 to 7 of the AIE request was deemed to have been made and this refusal was not justified. Accordingly, the Commissioner annulled that decision and expressed his expectation that ESB will now accept and process those parts of the request and inform the appellant of the date by which it can expect a decision.

The Commissioner found that the Courts Service holds information of the type requested while acting in a judicial capacity on behalf of the Judiciary. When acting in such a capacity, the Courts Service is not a public authority within the meaning of article 3(1) the AIE Regulations. Accordingly, the Commissioner found that he has no jurisdiction to review the Courts Service's decision on this AIE request.

In accordance with article 12(5) of the Regulations, the Commissioner reviewed the Department's decision on the appellant's request. He found that the Department was not justified in its decision to refuse all of the appellant's request, as the draft protocols contained some environmental information on measures designed to protect the elements of the environment in the form of information on the provisions of the Aarhus Convention and procedures of the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee. He found that this information fell within paragraph (c) of the definition of "environmental information". Notwithstanding this, the Commissioner considered articles 12(5)(c) and 7(3)(a), and found that it is not appropriate to require the Department to provide access to information which is publicly available and easily accessible. He found that the remainder of the information did not fall within the definition of environmental information, as it was not information on the Aarhus Convention or the proceedings of the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee. He found that the Department's draft protocols are not measures for the purposes of paragraph (c) of the definition of environmental information set out in article 3(1). He also found that Ireland's participation in the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee proceedings is not a measure or activity for the purpose of paragraph (c). The Commissioner annulled the Department's decision in part, insofar as it concerned environmental information on the provisions of the Aarhus Convention and procedures of the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee. In all other respects, he affirmed the Department's decision that the draft protocols do not contain environmental information. The Commissioner did not require the Department to make any environmental information available.

The Commissioner found that GHC is a public authority within the meaning of the AIE Regulations

In accordance with article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, the Commissioner reviewed Coillte's decision on the appellant's request. He found that Coillte was not justified in deciding that the information requested by the appellant was available in another form or manner for the purposes of article 7(3)(a). Notwithstanding this, the Commissioner found that refusal of the AIE request was justified under article 9(1)(c) of the AIE Regulations. The Commissioner found that the public interest in disclosure was outweighed by the interest served by refusal. Accordingly, the Commissioner affirmed Coillte's decision to refuse the appellant's AIE request, but for different reasons to those stated by Coillte.

In accordance with article 12(5) of the Regulations, the Commissioner reviewed BnM's decision to refuse the appellant's AIE request. He found that BnM was justified in refusing the appellant's request on the basis that no relevant information was held by or for BnM. Accordingly, the Commissioner affirmed the refusal of the appellant's request.

The Commissioner found that refusal was not justified on the ground of article 4, but was justified on the ground of article 8(a)(iv). Accordingly, he affirmed the Council’s decision and did not require it to make environmental information available to the appellant.

The Commissioner found that the EPA was justified in refusing the request under article 9(2)(a) of the AIE Regulations because the request was manifestly unreasonable. Accordingly, he affirmed the EPA's decision and did not require it to make environmental information available to the appellant.

The Commissioner found that the Council’s decision was not justified, because it did not find that the requested information was not held by another natural or legal person on its behalf. The Commissioner found that the information was not held by or for the Council, and, accordingly, he affirmed refusal of the request.

The Commissioner found that the Company does not hold information captured by parts 2 and 3 of the request. He found that it holds information captured by part 4 of the request and this information contains environmental information.