Decisions

The Commissioner annulled the decision of daa. He found that daa had not taken all reasonable steps to identify information relevant to the appellant’s request and directed that further searches be carried out to identify any additional information held by or on behalf of daa. The Commissioner found that a further 8 documents already identified by daa were within or partially within the scope of the request. He directed release of these documents, save for certain information which should be withheld under articles 8(a)(i) and 9(2)(c) of the AIE Regulations.

The Commissioner annulled the Council's decision. He directed the Council to undertake a fresh decision making process in respect of the appellant's revised request.

The Commissioner found that he did have jurisdiction to consider the appeal and that Coillte was not justified in treating the request as invalid under article 6(1)(c) of the AIE Regulations.

The Commissioner found that the information requested was “environmental information” within the meaning of the AIE Regulations and that ESB was not entitled to rely on article 9(1)(d) of the AIE Regulations to refuse access to that information.

The Commissioner found that the Council was justified in refusing the request for an engineer's report relating to the commercial units and for refusing the request for further information on the report relating to the shop under Article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations. The Council was not justified in redacting certain information from the records provided.

The Commissioner found that the Council failed to demonstrate that adequate steps were taken to identify and locate all relevant environmental information held by it. Therefore, the Council was not justified in refusing access to environmental information on the basis that no relevant environmental information was held by or for it.

The Commissioner found that the request has not been dealt with in accordance with Article 4(5) of the Directive because the Department has: A) failed to give sufficient reasons under the AIE Regulations for refusing to release all records relating to the development of a procedure by the Forest Service for addressing any issues regarding the construction of potentially unsanctioned Forest Roads. B) failed to carry out the balancing test required by article 10(3)-(5) of the AIE Regulations and to give reasons for its conclusion, when attempting to rely on an exception in respect of its refusal to provide the information requested.

The Commissioner affirmed the refusal of the request, but varied the reasons, finding that the refusal was justified under Article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations.

The Commissioner found that RTÉ is a "public authority" and that the information at issue was "environmental information" within the meaning of article 3(1) of the AIE Regulations.

The Commissioner annulled the Department's decision on the ground that it had not conducted adequate searches in an effort to locate all relevant environmental information. He directed it to undertake a fresh decision-making process in respect of the appellant's request.