Decisions

The Commissioner found that it was reasonable to conclude that information requested was not held by the Department following its carrying out of adequate searches and thus article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations applied

The Commissioner found that the requested correspondence was held in the professor?s personal capacity and not by or for UCD and thus article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations applied

The Commissioner found that the information is environmental information and he required the Department to make it available to the appellant

The Commissioner found that NAMA was justified in refusing access to the information sought under article 8(a)(iv) of the AIE Regulations and affirmed its decision accordingly.

The Commissioner accepted EirGrid's assurance that it did not hold certain information at the relevant time. He found that EirGrid's refusal to provide further information was justified in relation to all parts of the request except one. He found that EirGrid had not properly addressed one part because it had not properly had regard to the appellant's clarification of the scope of that part. Accordingly, he varied EirGrid's decision by annulling its decision on that part while affirming its decision on the other parts. He expressed his expectation that EirGrid will make a fresh decision on the annulled part in accordance with the AIE Regulations, if the appellant so wishes.

The Commissioner found that IFI's search for information was adequate. He found that, in the circumstances, IFI was not obliged, when processing this AIE request, to ask a retired member of staff if they held relevant information in a private email account (if any) or on a privately-owned mobile phone on IFI's behalf. Accordingly, the Commissioner affirmed IFI's decision and did not require it to take any action

The Commissioner found that EirGrid did not make any decision on much of the information captured by part 1 of the request. Given the close relationship between the information captured by parts 1 and 2, the Commissioner considered that both of those parts must be considered together. Accordingly, he annulled EirGrid?s decision on those parts of the request and required EirGrid to make a fresh decision in accordance with the Regulations.

The Commissioner found that while article 9(1)(c) applied to the information, the public interest in disclosure outweighed the interests served by refusal. Accordingly, he annulled the Council's decision and required it to make the withheld environmental information available to the appellant.

The Commissioner found that refusal to provide access to the requested information was justified on the ground of article 8(a)(iv) of the AIE Regulations. Accordingly, he affirmed the Board?s decision and did not require it to take any action.

The Commissioner found that in the circumstances of this case the Council was justified in granting access to the information sought in two planning enforcement files by making them available for inspection at its office in accordance with article 7(3)(a)(ii) of the AIE Regulations. He varied the Council's decision to include an additional seven enforcement files which, during the course of the Commissioner's review, the Council offered to provide the appellant access to, by also making them available for inspection at its office.