Decision
Ms. X and Coillte
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-155526-L4H8D4
Published on
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-155526-L4H8D4
Published on
Whether Coillte was justified in refusing access to information under article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations on the grounds that the requested information is not held by or for it.
21 November 2025
1. On 17 November 2024, the appellant submitted a request to Coillte requesting access to the following:
“I would like to request all information related to engagement between Coillte and Midlands Motor Club in connection with a planned and subsequently cancelled motor rally to be held on parts of the Coillte estate, circa May 2022.
To include, but not restricted to, correspondence (all media), including email, text messages, WhatsApp messages, voice messages, all notes and letters (hand written or word processed), notes and minutes from any meetings.
To clarify, this request is to include information prior to, during and subsequent to the date of the event. I would like to request this information in electronic format.”
2. On 20 December 2024, Coillte issued its decision refusing the appellant’s request on the basis of article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations.
3. On the same day, the appellant requested an internal review of this decision.
4. Coillte issued its internal review decision on 17 January 2025, wherein it affirmed its original decision.
5. The appellant brought an appeal to this Office on 20 January 2025.
6. I am directed by the Commissioner to carry out a review under article 12(5) of the Regulations. In carrying out my review, I have had regard to the submissions made by the appellant and by Coillte. In addition, I have had regard to:
a. the Guidance document provided by the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government on the implementation of the AIE Regulations (the Minister’s Guidance);
b. Directive 2003/4/EC (the AIE Directive), upon which the AIE Regulations are based;
c. the 1998 United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (the Aarhus Convention); and
d. The Aarhus Convention—An Implementation Guide (Second edition, June 2014) (‘the Aarhus Guide’).
7. What follows does not comment or make findings on each and every argument advanced but all relevant points have been considered.
8. In accordance with article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, my role is to review the internal review decision of the authority and to affirm, annul or vary it. Where appropriate in the circumstances of an appeal, I will require the authority to make available environmental information to the appellant.
9. Pursuant to article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations, the scope of this review is to investigate whether the authority has taken all reasonable steps to identify the requested information.
10. The basis of the appellant’s appeal is provided in the appellants internal review request wherein the appellant states that given “that this request relates to a proposed event on Coillte lands which was advertised online and signs were erected on Coillte`s property to inform forest users of the dates of the event, I am not satisfied that no records exist”.
11. In her appeal submission to this Office the appellant provides further detail in support of her belief that more relevant information in relation to her request should exist within the authority. I summarise these points as follows:
• Coillte have failed to include members of their Recreation Team as Subject Matter Experts
• Coillte have indicated that records for BAU 1 and BAU 2 were searched. The appellant contends that records for BAU 3 should also have been searched as this BAU contained an area which would have been included as a location for the proposed rally
• The appellant notes that subsequent to the event being cancelled the event organisers, the Midland Motor Club (MMC), posted a social media post which was complimentary to the “tireless work with our friends and colleagues in Coillte…” in relation to the efforts by both parties in organising the proposed event.
• The appellant further states that there “has clearly been a significant degree of engagement between the two parties and I find it to be most concerning that either Coillte either have not carried out adequate searches for those records, have not maintained any records of that engagement or have destroyed the records of that engagement”.
• The appellant has also pointed to a number of instances where she believes documents would normally be created for an event such as the rally in question, not limited to documents relating to insurance, logistical plans, risk assessments, contingency plans in the event of any incidents and details on access points for forest roads and/or Rights of Way.
12. In its internal review decision, Coillte stated that its search process included as follows:
“I consider that reasonable search steps were taken to locate the requested information and establish whether the information you have requested exists. The Decision informed you that the AIE Team communicated with two separate Business Area Units (BAU). BAU 1 and BAU 2 were consulted on this matter to search for the requested information.
The individuals consulted, and identified as the subject matter experts, involved the BAU Operations Managers in BAU 1 and 2. A key element of the role of the Operation Managers is to develop and implement security plans and controls within the BAU to ensure access is managed and the security and integrity of Coillte property and the forest estate is protected.
The searches conducted included an extensive search of files using a key word search on cloud-based storage and Office 365/emails, team-based storage and by reference to direct telephone conversations with BAU operations staff from the relevant business division. The key word(s)/search terms used included ‘Motor Rally, ‘Motor Sport Ireland’, ‘LM09 Rally’ and ‘Rally Permit.’
You were also provided a basis on which it was concluded that Coillte does not hold any information within the scope of the Request and that no such information is held by any other person or body on its behalf. It was confirmed in the Decision, that all engagement between Coillte and event organisers was via phone / on-site meeting and no records were generated. Therefore, in this instance no information was prepared, and no notes or formal minutes were taken by Coillte. I am satisfied on the basis of engagement with the staff detailed above, and the search steps that were followed, that a reasonable search was conducted.
Consequently, I am satisfied to confirm that no records relating to the Request exist in Coillte and therefore the Decision is affirmed”.
13. Article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations is the relevant provision to consider where the question arises as to whether the requested environmental information or any further environmental information is held by or for the public authority concerned.
It provides as follows:
“Where a request is made to a public authority and the information requested is not held by or for the authority concerned, that authority shall inform the applicant as soon as possible that the information is not held by or for it .”
14. This Office’s approach to dealing with this type of case is to assess whether adequate steps have been taken to identify and locate relevant environmental information, having regard to the circumstances. In determining whether the steps taken are adequate in the circumstances, a standard of reasonableness is applied.
15. What will be considered reasonable will vary from case to case, but as a general guide, I set out below the type of information that my Office would generally expect to be set out in a decision where a public authority is relying on article 7(5) of the Regulations;
I. an outline of exactly which areas/units etc. of the organisation were searched for the information;
II. an explanation of how searches were carried out (i.e. manually, by computer, by name, by key words). Keywords should be recorded and provided in the decision as appropriate;
III. details of the individuals consulted in connection with the search;
IV. a description of the searches carried out to cover the possibility of misfiled/misplaced records;
V. details of guidelines, practices, procedures and arrangements in relation to the storage, filing, archiving, retention and destruction of the type of information requested in this case;
VI. the basis on which the public authority has concluded that it does not hold any information within the scope of the appellant’s request and that no such information is held by any other person or body on its behalf.
16. During the course of this review, this Office sought submissions from Coillte in relation to the searches and steps which it undertook to locate relevant environmental information.
17. As part of a focused request for submissions issued by this Office, Coillte was requested to outline further detail on their search process and to provide further detail in response to the assertions made by the appellant in her submissions to this Office (as outlined above).
18. In response, Coillte made the following points
a) “The Initial Decision maker consulted thoroughly with the Subject Matter Experts being Coillte personnel assigned to BAU1 and BAU 3 being the geographic area relevant to the Request and who would have been involved in the relevant process if a motor rally was to proceed.
b) The Subject Matter Experts identified were the Operations Managers in BAU 1 and BAU 3 and individual staff from BAU 3.
c) Searches were carried out on Sharepoint and on Microsoft Outlook with the assigned SMEs all searching their own outlook accounts.
d) The keywords used in the searches were ‘Motor Rally, ‘Motor Sport Ireland’, ‘LM09 Rally’ and ‘Rally Permit’.
e) The searches carried out did not produce results for environmental information relevant to the Request.
f) Furthermore, the Subject Matter Experts were in a position to confirm to the first instance decision maker that, from their knowledge of any such external stakeholder engagement relevant to their BAU, to include on any events proposed or confirmed and on the process for event organisation connected with the Coillte Estate, that any engagement on a rally the subject of the Request, which did not actually proceed and where a permit did not issue nor was a permit applied for by any party, was between Coillte at BAU level and the proposed event organisers through phone calls and on-site meetings only.
g) The SMEs have further confirmed that there were no notes or meetings taken of any such phone call or meeting.
h) In dealing with the Appeal, I reviewed the searches carried out and I requested that the identified SMEs carry out a further search, without prejudice to the searches already carried out and the reasoning provided in the Initial Decision, in the same locations using keyword search term “Midland Motor Club”. Arising out of that more recent search, it has been confirmed to me that no records relevant to the Request were identified.
i) Coillte has also confirmed that incorrect detail was given in the internal review decision whereby the authority incorrectly stated that subject matter experts (SMEs) had been consulted in BAU 1 and BAU 2, the authority has confirmed that searches were in fact carried out in BAU 1 and BAU 3 which the authority confirms was the geographic location of the proposed motor rally”.
19. Having considered all of the above, I am satisfied that Coillte have taken reasonable steps to identify and locate information relevant to this request. It is important to note that where a public authority refuses a request for records under article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations, the questions is whether the body has taken all reasonable steps to ascertain the whereabouts of relevant records. The Act does not require absolute certainty as to the existence or location of records, as situations arise where records are lost or simply cannot be found, or, indeed, may have been destroyed in line with the body’s records management policies.
20. It is also important to note that we do not generally expect public authorities to carry out extensive or indefinite searches for records simply because an applicant asserts that more records should or might exist or rejects a public authorities’ explanation as to why a record does not exist. What is required to rely on article 7(5) is that the public authority has taken all reasonable steps to locate the record sought.
21. Having carried out a review under article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, I affirm the authority`s decision.
22. A party to the appeal or any other person affected by this decision may appeal to the High
Court on a point of law from the decision. Such an appeal must be initiated not later than two months after notice of the decision was given to the person bringing the appeal.
______________________
Julie O’Leary
On behalf of the Commissioner for Environmental Information