Decisions

The Commissioner found that: · The Department’s refusal to provide access to information on the third part of the request was justified because such information was not held by or for the Department · The Department’s refusal to provide access to the withheld information was not justified The Commissioner varied the Department’s decision to reflect these findings. In addition, he required the Department to provide the appellant with access to the withheld information

In accordance with Article 12(5) and Article 11(5)(a) of the Regulations, the Commissioner reviewed the contention by Wexwind that it is not a public authority for the purposes of the AIE Regulations. Having considered the definition of "public authority" contained in article 3(1) of the AIE Regulations, and the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union, he found that Wexwind is not a public authority for the purposes of the AIE Regulations as it does not constitute government or public administration under paragraph (a) of the definition, it does not perform public administrative functions relating to the environment under paragraph (b) of the definition, nor is it under the control of a public authority for the purposes of paragraph (c) of the definition.

The Commissioner found that, while the AIE request was made to the ESB, the ESB did not process it in accordance with the AIE Regulations. Accordingly, the Commissioner annulled the ESB's deemed refusal. The ESB should now process the request in accordance with the AIE Regulations.

The Commissioner varied the EPA's decision. He found that refusal was not justified for the reason given, but was justified because the requested information was not held by or for the EPA

The Commissioner varied the EPA's decision. He found that refusal was not justified for the reason given, but was justified because the requested information was not held by or for the EPA

Decision of the Commissioner for Environmental Information on an appeal made under article 12(5) of the European Communities (Access to Information on the Environment) Regulations 2007 to 2014 (the AIE Regulations)

In accordance with article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, the Commissioner reviewed the decision of ESB and found that it was justified in refusing the request under article 9(2)(a) of the Regulations. He affirmed the decision of ESB accordingly.

The Commissioner found that the information is environmental information, and, with the exception of certain information which the Commissioner found to be commercially sensitive, refusal was not justified. Accordingly, the Commissioner varied ESBN's decision and required ESBN to make certain information available to the appellant.

In accordance with article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, the Commissioner reviewed EirGrid's decision to refuse access to information. The Commissioner found that the withheld information is not environmental information within the scope of the request. Accordingly, he affirmed EirGrid's decision.

In accordance with Article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, the Commissioner reviewed ESBN's decision to refuse the appellant's request. The Commissioner found that the information requested was environmental information under paragraph (c) of the definition set out in article 3(1) of the AIE Regulations. The Commissioner found that ESBN was not justified in refusing the appellant's request for environmental information under article 9(2)(a) of the AIE Regulations on the ground that the request was manifestly unreasonable with regard to volume or range. The Commissioner found that refusal was not justified under article 9(1)(d) of the AIE Regulations. The Commissioner found that article 10(1) of the AIE Regulations regarding emissions into the environment did not apply to the information requested by the appellant. The Commissioner further found that article 9(1)(c) of the AIE Regulations relating to commercial and industrial confidentiality applied to the information requested. He found under article 10(3) that the public interest served by disclosure outweighed the interest served by refusal. Accordingly, he annulled the decision of ESBN to refuse the appellant's request, and required ESBN to make the requested environmental information available to the appellant.