Decisions

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.

The Commissioner found that the Council was not justified in refusing access to the road safety audit reports. He found that they are environmental information under article 3(1)(c). He further found that refusal of access to the safety audit reports under article 8(a)(iv) of the AIE Regulations was not justified. Accordingly, he required the Council to release the reports. In addition, he found that as the Council had not carried out an adequate search for the draft reports and correspondence sought, it was not justified in refusing access to that information. He remitted that part of the request back to the Council and expressed his expectation that it would make a new decision on it, in accordance with the AIE Regulations. The Commissioner also found that the Council was justified under article 7(5) of the Regulations in refusing access to information relating to a meeting between Council staff and An Garda Síochána on the basis the information was not held by or for it. Accordingly, he affirmed the Council's decision on that part of the request.

The Commissioner found that, in the circumstances of this case, Article 13.8.1° of the Constitution precludes the Council of State and the OSGP from being subject to the review procedure under Article 6 of the AIE Directive. He found that for the purposes of this review, neither the OSGP nor the Council of State is a public authority within the meaning of article 3 of the AIE Regulations, as amended by S.I. No. 309 of 2018 European Communities (Access to Information on the Environment) (Amendment) Regulations 2018. Accordingly, he found that he has no jurisdiction to review the OSGP's decision on this AIE request.

The Commissioner found that some of the withheld information was outside of the scope of his review because it fell outside of the date-range specified by the appellant. He noted that the appellant excluded three of the withheld records from the scope of his appeal. The Commissioner found that the remaining withheld information does not constitute or contain environmental information. Accordingly, he affirmed the EPA?s decision while amending the reasons for refusal to reflect his findings.

The Commissioner was not satisfied that Coillte adequately responded to this AIE request or that its decision was justified. He therefore annulled Coillte?s decision and required it to process the request afresh. He considered that the parties should engage with one another so that, if the appellant wishes to pursue the request, there could be greater clarity as to what environmental information is both sought and held, and if access to requested information is refused, greater clarity as to the reasons for that refusal.

The Commissioner found that the Department was not justified in refusing the appellant?s request. He found that the information on the dates of travel, departure point and destination, flying time and the number of passengers is environmental information under article 3(1)(c). He found that the information on the departure point and destination, and the dates of those journeys, is environmental information under article 3(1)(b). The Commissioner did not accept the assertion that the information is excluded from the scope of the AIE Regulations on the basis that it relates to the President. He was also not satisfied that article 8(a)(i), 8(a)(ii) or 9(1)(a) applied to the information as claimed. Accordingly, he annulled the Department's decision and required it to make the information available to the appellant.