Decisions

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 Coillte held additional documents within the scope of the appellant's request and directed their release. He upheld Coillte's reliance on article 9(1)(b) as providing grounds for refusal of information within the scope of the appellant's request which was subject to legal advice privilege.

The Commissioner (i) found that certain information held by the Department was outside the scope of the appellant's request; (ii) found that certain third party information could be redacted from the information disclosed; and (iii) directed release of the remaining information to the appellant.

The Commissioner found that the information at issue is "environmental information". He found that adequate searches had been conducted by ESB to identify and locate information but that certain information redacted by ESB comes within the scope of the appellant's request. He remitted the matter to ESB for further consideration.

The Commissioner found that the information at issue (i.e. payment information, the Schedule to a Wayleave Notice and a Deed of Easement relating to the placement of electricity lines by ESB on Coillte lands) was "environmental information". He remitted the matter to Coillte for further consideration.

The Commissioner found that it was reasonable to conclude that no relevant environmental information was held by or for the Council following adequate searches and thus, article 7(5) of the AIE regulations applied.

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

The Commissioner found that the Council was not justified in refusing access to the requested information in reliance on article 8(a)(iv) of the AIE Regulations.

The Commissioner found that: (1) daa holds information falling within the scope of the appellant's request; and (2) The information requested is environmental information.

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.