Decisions

The Commissioner found that the requested information constitutes environmental information and the Department holds it as a public authority and not in a legislative capacity. He found that articles 8(b) and 9(2)(c) do not apply in this case. He found that article 9(2)(d) applies to most but not all of the requested information. Accordingly, he varied the Department's decision and required it to make specific environmental information available to the appellant.

In accordance with article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, the Commissioner found that the Council was justified in refusing access to the details at issue under article 8(a)(i) and affirmed its decision accordingly.

The Commissioner found that ESB's decision to refuse access was justified under article 9(1)(d) of the AIE Regulations. He also found that the interest in maintaining the exception in article 9(1)(d) of the AIE Regulations outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information sought, where disclosure of the information required ESB to provide the appellant with a copy of the transcript in breach of the copyright holder’s intellectual property rights. However, having regard to the public interest served by disclosure of the environmental information, he considered that it would be reasonable to require ESB to allow the appellant to inspect the transcript in situ at its office. He varied ESB’s decision accordingly.

The Commissioner found that while some of the information sought was environmental information, this had been given to the appellant. He found that the remaining withheld information is not environmental information within the meaning of the AIE Regulations. Accordingly, he affirmed the Office's decision.

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