Decisions

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.

The Commissioner found that the information sought was environmental information. He found that the Council was justified in refusing to release the requested information to the appellant but he varied the reasons for refusal. He decided that it would not be appropriate to require the Council to provide the requested environmental information since, having weighed the public interest under article 10(3), he concluded that its non-disclosure is justified under article 8(a)(iv) of the AIE Regulations.

The Commissioner found that all of the information in the contract is environmental information. He identified the information at issue as comprising all of the information in the contract except that which was either released by daa or excluded from the scope of the appeal. The Commissioner found that refusal to grant access to the information at issue was justified on the ground of article 9(1)(c). He therefore affirmed daa’s decision to part-refuse the request, albeit solely on that ground. The Commissioner did not require daa to make environmental information available to the appellant.

In accordance with article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, the Commissioner reviewed the Department's decision. He found that processing the AIE request would place an unreasonable administrative burden on the Department so that the AIE request was manifestly unreasonable under article 9(2)(a). He went on to find that the interest in maintaining the exception in article 9(2)(a) outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information sought. He affirmed the Department's decision.