Decisions

The Commissioner found that IDA was justified in not giving the appellant further information because the information which it provided adequately met her request

In accordance with article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, the Commissioner varied the decision of the Department. He found that the decision to refuse access to the information in the inspection reports about the standing stocking rates was not justified and directed the release of this information. He found that the Department was justified under article 9(1)(c) in refusing access to the actual production data in any of the reports relating to the farms or companies which objected to the release of their details.

In accordance with article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, the Commissioner varied the decision of the Department. He found that the decision to refuse access to an invoice was not justified and directed the release of the relevant record in full. He found that the Department was justified in refusing access to the remaining identified records at issue under article 8(a)(iv) of the Regulations on the basis of legal professional privilege. He also found that article 7(5) applied to any additional records relevant to the appellant's request.

The Commissioner found that the Council's decision to refuse access in part was justified under article 8(a)(i) of the AIE Regulations. He went on to find that the interest in maintaining the exception article 8(a)(i) outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information sought. He affirmed the decision of the Council accordingly.

The Commissioner found that GHC's refusal of the request was justified in part under articles 8(a)(i) and 9(1)(c) of the AIE Regulations having weighed the public interest in accordance with Article 10(3). He affirmed its decision in relation to the amounts charged. He found that the refusal of access to the remaining information was not justified. He varied GHC’s decision accordingly and required the partial release of information.

The Commissioner found that refusal to provide access to environmental information in certain records was justified because those records were not within the scope of the request. Accordingly, he affirmed the Department’s refusal and did not require it to make environmental information available to the appellant

In accordance with article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, the Commissioner reviewed the decision of the Department and found that it was justified in refusing access to the record sheets sought under article 7(5) of the Regulations. He affirmed the decision of the Department accordingly.

The Commissioner found that the Council's search for relevant environmental information was adequate and that it found no further relevant information. He therefore accepted that the Council had granted the appellant access to all of the relevant environmental information which it held. Accordingly, the Commissioner affirmed the Council's decision and did not require it to take any further action

In accordance with article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, the Commissioner reviewed the decision of the Department and found that it was justified in refusing access to the townland details requested under article 8(a)(i) of the Regulations. He affirmed the decision of the Department accordingly.

In accordance with article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, the Commissioner reviewed Coillte’s decision. He found that the sales of land in the particular circumstances of this case were measures likely to affect the elements and factors of the environment within the meaning of article 3(1)(c). He also found that the identity of the purchasers was information "on" those sales, and therefore, that the identities were environmental information under article 3(1)(c). The Commissioner annulled Coillte's decision that the identity of purchasers of land was not environmental information. He went on to express the expectation that Coillte would proceed to process the appellant's AIE request in relation to the identity of the purchasers.