Decisions

Summary of Commissioner's Decision: In accordance with article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, the Commissioner reviewed EirGrid’s decision on the appellant's request. He found EirGrid was not justified in its decision to refuse the request on the basis the requested information does not fall within the definition of environmental information within the meaning of article 3(1) of the AIE Regulations. In doing so, he found the requested information fell within paragraph (c) of the definition of environmental information in article 3(1). The Commissioner annulled EirGrid’s decision in full, and expressed his expectation that EirGrid would make a new decision on the request in accordance with the AIE Regulations.

The Commissioner found that the Council was not justified in deciding that it held no further information within the scope of the AIE request. He expressed his expectation that the Council will undertake a fully adequate search for relevant information and make a fresh decision on the request.

In accordance with article 12(5) of the Regulations, the Commissioner reviewed daa's internal review decision. He found that daa is a public authority subject to the AIE Regulations, notwithstanding the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2014. He found that daa was not justified in its decision that the agreement does not fall within the definition of "environmental information", as daa had incorrectly applied the provisions of article 3(1) of the AIE Regulations. The Commissioner annulled daa's decision in full and expressed his expectation that daa would make a new decision on the request, in accordance with the AIE Regulations.

The Commissioner found that the AIE request was valid and ought to have been accepted when it was received. He found that there had been a deemed refusal of the request and that the appellant’s subsequent appeal was valid. Accordingly, he was satisfied that he had jurisdiction to conduct a review. The Commissioner found that refusal of the request was not justified and he annulled that decision. However, he went on to find that the request was manifestly unreasonable having regard to the volume and range of information sought. He was satisfied that fully processing the request would have imposed an unreasonable burden on EirGrid. He therefore decided that it would not be appropriate for him to require EirGrid to provide information to the appellant.

In accordance with article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, the Commissioner reviewed the Council's decision on the appellant's request. The Commissioner noted that the Council holds additional information, which was not taken into account in the Council's internal review decision. He varied the Council's internal review decision and required the Council to provide the appellant with access to eight traffic counts. With regard to article 7(3)(a)(ii) of the AIE Regulations, the Commissioner decided that it was reasonable for the Council to provide access to environmental information in a form other than that requested by the appellant.

The Commissioner found that ESB was not justified in refusing to accept any parts of the AIE request. He therefore found that a decision refusing parts 1 to 7 of the AIE request was deemed to have been made and this refusal was not justified. Accordingly, the Commissioner annulled that decision and expressed his expectation that ESB will now accept and process those parts of the request and inform the appellant of the date by which it can expect a decision.

The Commissioner found that the Courts Service holds information of the type requested while acting in a judicial capacity on behalf of the Judiciary. When acting in such a capacity, the Courts Service is not a public authority within the meaning of article 3(1) the AIE Regulations. Accordingly, the Commissioner found that he has no jurisdiction to review the Courts Service's decision on this AIE request.

In accordance with article 12(5) of the Regulations, the Commissioner reviewed the Department's decision on the appellant's request. He found that the Department was not justified in its decision to refuse all of the appellant's request, as the draft protocols contained some environmental information on measures designed to protect the elements of the environment in the form of information on the provisions of the Aarhus Convention and procedures of the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee. He found that this information fell within paragraph (c) of the definition of "environmental information". Notwithstanding this, the Commissioner considered articles 12(5)(c) and 7(3)(a), and found that it is not appropriate to require the Department to provide access to information which is publicly available and easily accessible. He found that the remainder of the information did not fall within the definition of environmental information, as it was not information on the Aarhus Convention or the proceedings of the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee. He found that the Department's draft protocols are not measures for the purposes of paragraph (c) of the definition of environmental information set out in article 3(1). He also found that Ireland's participation in the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee proceedings is not a measure or activity for the purpose of paragraph (c). The Commissioner annulled the Department's decision in part, insofar as it concerned environmental information on the provisions of the Aarhus Convention and procedures of the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee. In all other respects, he affirmed the Department's decision that the draft protocols do not contain environmental information. The Commissioner did not require the Department to make any environmental information available.

The Commissioner found that GHC is a public authority within the meaning of the AIE Regulations

In accordance with article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, the Commissioner reviewed Coillte's decision on the appellant's request. He found that Coillte was not justified in deciding that the information requested by the appellant was available in another form or manner for the purposes of article 7(3)(a). Notwithstanding this, the Commissioner found that refusal of the AIE request was justified under article 9(1)(c) of the AIE Regulations. The Commissioner found that the public interest in disclosure was outweighed by the interest served by refusal. Accordingly, the Commissioner affirmed Coillte's decision to refuse the appellant's AIE request, but for different reasons to those stated by Coillte.