Decisions

Summary of Commissioner's Decision: The Commissioner found that the Department was justified in refusing the appellant’s request for information on the grounds that it was acting in a legislative capacity within the meaning of article 3(2) of the AIE Regulations. As a result, the Department is not a public authority for the purposes of the AIE Regulations and is outside the scope of the AIE Regulations.

The Commissioner found that ESB’s decision was justified by the reason given. Accordingly, he affirmed ESB’s decision.

Summary of Commissioner's Decision: In accordance with article 12(5) of the Regulations, the Commissioner reviewed the Council's decision on the appellant's request. The Commissioner noted that the Council holds information which it did not take into account when making its decision on the AIE request. The Commissioner was satisfied that this new information fell within the scope of the appellant's request. On this basis, he found the Council's decision to be inadequate, and therefore annulled the Council's internal review decision. The Commissioner noted that the Council has now disclosed the newly identified information to the appellant. In circumstance where the Commissioner was satisfied with the Council's account of the information it holds, he made no further recommendation on this appeal.

Summary of Commissioner's Decision: The Commissioner found that the Council was not justified in refusing the appellant's AIE request under article 7(3)(a)(i) of the AIE Regulations. In doing so, he stated that a request can only be granted under article 7(3)(a)(i). Nevertheless, he accepted that where a person does not request information in a particular form or manner, a public authority may grant access to an AIE request by directing the person to where the information is publicly available in an easily accessible manner. However, in the circumstances of the case the Commissioner found that the Council had not taken adequate steps to identify and locate information covered by the appellant's AIE request. Accordingly, he found that the Council was not justified in refusing the appellant's AIE request. The Commissioner annulled the Council's decision in full and expressed his expectation that it would make a new decision on the request in accordance with the AIE Regulations.

Summary of Commissioner's Decision: In accordance with article 12(5) of the Regulations, the Commissioner reviewed the Council's decision. He annulled the Council's internal review decision on the basis that the decision failed to consider all information held by the Council, and incorrectly characterised the scope of the request. The Commissioner expressed his expectation that the Council should make a new decision on the appellant's request.

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.