Decisions

The Commissioner found that SIRO Limited does not meet the legal definition of public authority in article 3(1) of the AIE Regulations and, therefore, is not a public authority

The Commissioner found that ESBIEFML does not meet the legal definition of public authority in article 3(1) of the AIE Regulations and, therefore, is not a public authority

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 varied OCC?s decision and required it to make the withheld environmental information available to the appellant.

The Commissioner found that Raheenleagh Power does not meet the legal definition of public authority in article 3(1) of the AIE Regulations and, therefore, is not a public authority

The Commissioner found that the Department does not hold additional environmental information within the scope of the appeal. Accordingly, he affirmed the Department's decision, while varying the ground of refusal to reflect that finding.

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

In accordance with article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, the Commissioner reviewed the decision of the Council. He affirmed the Council's refusal of the request but varied the reasons for refusal, finding that refusal was justified under articles 7(5), 8(a)(i) and 9(2)(a) of the Regulations.

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.