Decisions

Summary of Commissioner's Decision: The Commissioner found that BIM?s refusal of the request was not justified since it was a deemed refusal without reasons. Accordingly, he annulled that decision. He decided that it would not be appropriate for him to require BIM to provide the appellant with the requested environmental information since its non-disclosure is justified on the ground of article 8(a)(iv) of the AIE Regulations.

Summary of Commissioner's Decision: The Commissioner found that the Council?s refusal of the request was not justified. He decided that it would not be appropriate to require the Council to make environmental information available to the appellant at this stage. He expressed his expectation that the Council will deliver a valid initial decision on the request to the appellant without further delay, but in any case no later than 12 July 2018.

Summary of Commissioner's Decision: The Commissioner found that TII?s decision to refuse to grant access to the requested information was not justified by the reasons given. However, he decided that the request was manifestly unreasonable within the meaning of article 9(2)(a) and varied TII?s decision to rely instead on that ground. He did not require TII to provide the appellant with access to the requested information.

Summary of Commissioner's Decision: The Commissioner found that refusal to provide access to some of the requested information was justified because TII did not hold it. He found that refusal to provide access to other information in the requested format on the grounds of inability was reasonable and therefore justified. He found that refusal to provide access to metadata, for no stated reason, was not justified. However, he accepted TII?s later assurance that it did not hold such information and found that refusal would have been justified on that ground. The Commissioner varied TII?s decision to reflect his findings.

The Commissioner held that RPS was not a public authority for the purposes of the AIE Regulations. The Commissioner accepted that RPS was not government or other public administration, including a public advisory body under article 3(1)(a). Neither was it a natural or legal person performing public administrative functions under national law under article 3(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations. He found that RPS, a private company contracted by Wexford County Council through a public procurement process to carry out noise monitoring on wind farms in County Wexford, did not have public responsibilities or functions nor was it providing public services. Accordingly, the Commissioner found that RPS was not a public authority under 3(1)(c) of the AIE Regulations.

As in the course of this review the Department located further information relevant to the AIE request, the Commissioner found that the Department?s decision that access had been granted to all information held by or for it falling within the scope of the AIE request was not justified. The Commissioner varied the Department?s decision and found that it had, at this point in time, taken all reasonable steps to search for and provide the appellant with the information within the scope of the request. He went on to find that article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations applied to those aspects of the request for which information was not provided.

The Commissioner found that while the Council said it had refused the request, it had in fact part-granted it by providing access to most of the requested information. He found that neither of the reasons given by the Council justified its refusal to provide access to the withheld information. He decided it would be appropriate for him to require the Council to provide the appellant with access to the withheld environmental information relating to the first part of the request and expressed his expectation that the Council will make a fresh decision on the second part.

The Commissioner found that the Council was not justified in refusing the release of the requested information to the appellant. The Commissioner noted that the Council has now disclosed all information he considers was in the scope of the AIE request. In circumstances where the Commissioner was satisfied with the Council?s account of the information it holds, he made no further recommendation on this but made some observations on this appeal

The Commissioner found that OCC?s decision to refuse to provide the appellant with access to information on the grounds of commercial sensitivity was not justified, as the AIE Regulations do not permit refusal for that reason. He therefore annulled OCC?s refusal decision. The Commissioner decided to formally require OCC to provide the appellant with access to the data on waste types and quantities submitted in AERs for 2015 by the holders of the waste-facility permits specified in the AIE request. He decided that it would be not be appropriate to require OCC to provide access to waste destination data from the same reports, on industrial confidentiality grounds, as provided by article 9(1)(c) of the AIE Regulations.

Summary of Commissioner's Decision: The Commissioner found that Mr Neary acts in a judicial capacity when performing his statutory function and is therefore not a public authority within the meaning of article 3 of the AIE Regulations, when so acting