Decisions

The Commissioner found that the refusal was not justified for the reasons given. He annulled the decision of the Department and directed release of the information sought. He directed the Department to undertake a fresh decision-making process in respect of one part of the request

The Commissioner found that the interest in withholding limited sections of the draft EIS on the basis of article 9(2)(c) of the AIE Regulations outweighed the public interest in disclosure of the information and upheld daa's reliance on the exception in respect of those limited sections. He found that the public interest in disclosure of the remaining sections of the draft EIS (i.e. the majority of the draft EIS) outweighed the interest served by withholding it and accordingly directed partial release of the draft EIS.

The Commissioner found that the Department failed to comply with the provisions of the AIE Regulations in processing the request and annulled the Department's decision. He did not, however, direct the Department to undertake a fresh decision-making process as the information requested had already been provided to the appellant.

The Commissioner varied the Council's decision. While he affirmed the Council's decision to refuse access to additional information relating to parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 24, 25, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 4a, 5a, 6a, and 7a of the appellant's request under article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations, he annulled its decision in respect of part 26 and directed it to undertake a fresh decision making process in respect of that part. He also annulled its decision to refuse access to certain information contained in Documents 4 and 6 under article 9(1)(c) of the AIE Regulations and directed it to undertake a fresh decision making process in respect of that information.

The Commissioner annulled the Council's decision on the ground that it had not carried out a review of the appellant's request at either stage of the process. He directed it to undertake a fresh decision-making process in respect of the appellant's request.

The Commissioner found that the Council's refusal to provide access to the environmental information was not justified under article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations. He directed the Council to undertake a fresh decision-making process.

The Commissioner annulled the decision of the Department and directed that a fresh decision-making process be carried out in respect of the appellant's request.

The Commissioner annulled the decision of daa. He found that daa had not taken all reasonable steps to identify information relevant to the appellant's request and directed that further searches be carried out to identify any additional information held by or on behalf of daa. The Commissioner found that a further 8 documents already identified by daa were within or partially within the scope of the request. He directed release of these documents, save for certain information which should be withheld under articles 8(a)(i) and 9(2)(c) of the AIE Regulations.

The Commissioner annulled the Council's decision. He directed the Council to undertake a fresh decision making process in respect of the appellant's revised request.

The Commissioner found that he did have jurisdiction to consider the appeal and that Coillte was not justified in treating the request as invalid under article 6(1)(c) of the AIE Regulations.