Decisions

The Commissioner found that the RSA was not justified in refusing access to the majority of information contained in the motor expense records held by it, which fell within the scope of the request on the basis it was not environmental information. He found that the majority of information in those records was environmental information within the meaning of article 3(1)(c) of the definition. Accordingly, he annulled the RSA's decision in respect of that part of the records and expressed his expectation that it would make a new decision on that part of the request in accordance with the AIE Regulations. In relation to the remaining information in the motor expense records, the Commissioner affirmed the RSA's refusal of access to that information on the basis that it was not environmental information within the meaning of the definition in article 3(1).

The Commissioner found that the information at issue constitutes environmental information within the meaning of article 3(1) of the AIE Regulations.

The Commissioner found that the information was "environmental information" and remitted the matter to the Defence Forces for further consideration

The Commissioner found that the information was not excluded from the scope of the AIE Regulations pursuant to article 3(2). He annulled the OPW's decision in full, and expressed his expectation that it would make a new decision on the request in accordance with the AIE Regulations

The Commissioner found that the information was not held by or for the Council and article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations applied

The Commissioner found that it was reasonable to conclude that no further relevant environmental information was held by or for Teagasc following its carrying out of adequate searches and thus, article 7(5) of the AIE regulations applied.

The Commissioner found that the interest in withholding 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 certain portions of the draft EIS. He found that the public interest in disclosure of the remaining portion of the draft EIS outweighed the interest served by withholding it and accordingly directed release of that remaining portion

The Commissioner found that it was reasonable to conclude that no further relevant environmental information was held by or for the EPA following its carrying out of adequate searches and, thus, article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations applied

The Commissioner found that the Department was not justified in its decision refusing access to the requested information on the basis that it was not environmental information. He found that the requested information was environmental information pursuant to article 3(1)(c) of the AIE Regulations. The Commissioner annulled the Department’s decision in full, and expressed his expectation that it would make a new decision on the request in accordance with the AIE Regulations.

In affirming daa's decision, the Commissioner found that it had, at this point in time, taken adequate steps to search for and provide the appellant with access to the environmental information falling within the scope of parts A and C of the request that is held by or for daa. He went on to find that article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations applied and that no further environmental information falling within the scope of parts A and C the request is held by or for the daa at this time.