Decision
Ms Y and Coillte
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-148189-F7M1K6
Published on
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-148189-F7M1K6
Published on
Whether Coillte was justified in refusing access to the requested information under article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations.
28 August 2025
1. On 18 December 2023 the appellant requested the following information:
“I request, by email, an Excel spreadsheet listing all Standard Operating Procedure documents currently available for use by Coillte. The spreadsheet to include the following information:
• Title/name of the Standard Operating Procedure ('SOP')
• Number of pages of the current SOP
• Revision number of the current SOP
• Issue date of the SOP”
2. Coillte delivered its original decision on 17 January 2024, wherein the decision maker stated that on the basis that having “examined material held by Coillte and having taken all reasonable steps to locate the requested information and establish whether the information you have requested exists, I have been unable to locate any records relevant to your request. I therefore refuse your request under Article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations”.
3. The appellant sought an internal review of the decision on 16 February 2024.
4. Coillte issued its internal review decision on 14 March 2024 and advised that the authority re-examined the Request and decided that the decision made by the initial decision maker should be affirmed
5. The appellant appealed to my Office on 12 April 2024.
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 to correspondence between Coillte and the appellant as outlined above and to correspondence between my Office and both Coillte and the appellant on the matter. 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, the role of this Office is to review the public authority’s decision and to affirm, annul or vary it. As such, this review is concerned with whether Coillte was justified in refusing access to the requested information under article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations.
9. The appellant’s submission to this office, dated 10 June 2024, made a number of points in support of the request, which I will summarise as follows:
I. Coillte had in its original decision stated that while a “list” of SOP documents did not exist it was confirmed during discussions with Coillte Forest’s Certification & Environment Manager that “'that a large number of SOP's do in fact exist”.
II. The appellant states that “Coillte are fixating on the preferred format of the requested environmental information (i.e. a list) and not considering the environmental information requested”.
III. The appellant also noted that in a separate AIE request to the authority on a similar issue the authority had provided 17 records in relation to SOPs that relate to Coillte`s environmental management which cover a three-year period. The appellant has also provided her own summary of these 17 records which appear to all relate to separate areas of environmental management within Coillte.
10. The appellant concluded her submissions by stating her contention that “given that the requested information does exist (albeit not in the preferred format), I contend that Article 7(5) does not and cannot properly apply as a matter of law and does not apply in this case”.
11. In its original decision dated 17 January 2024, Coillte refused the request, pursuant to article 7(5) of the regulations on the basis that after internal discussions with Coillte`s Forest Certification & Environment Manager it was confirmed that no “list” exists containing the requested information”.
12. The authority, in its original decision, further stated that during discussions “it was confirmed that a large number of SOP’s do in fact exist, a number of which may include or be environmental information”. The authority then stated that the “search, retrieval and validation of all SOP’s that currently exist would be considered an unreasonable task” and invited the appellant to submit a specific request to a particular area of Coillte`s business.
13. In conclusion, to its original decision Coillte stated that it was “satisfied that adequate steps have been taken by Coillte to identify and locate relevant environmental information relating to the Request. Coillte further considers that these steps were reasonable, having regard to the Request and all other circumstances”.
14. Coillte affirmed its position in its refusal of the request at the internal review decision stage.
15. With a view to outlining the steps taken to locate the information sought, Coillte stated as follows:
“The searches conducted included an extensive search of files for a list providing the information requested. The following search methods were used; electronic, by name, by date, by key words. This type of information was searched for using a key word search on cloud-based storage and on team based storage. The key word(s)/search terms used included “list of Standard Operating Procedures in Coillte” and “Standard Operating Procedures Master”.
16. Coillte went on to say that:
“Following these detailed enquiries and discussions, I am satisfied to having taken reasonable and adequate steps to identify and retrieve information within the scope of the Request, I confirm that the actual information in relation to the Request, i.e. a “list”, does not exist in Coillte”
17. With direct reference to the existence of relevant information within the authority, Coillte in its internal review decision states that “while a list of Standard Operation Procedures does not exist, a large number of Standard Operating Procedure documents may exist which may include or be environmental information. Coillte use Standard Operating Procedures when conducting varied operations and potentially a number of other activities across the business”.
18. Article 7(1) of the AIE Regulations requires public authorities to make available environmental information that is held by or for them on request, subject to the provisions of the AIE Regulations. Accordingly, if a public authority wishes to refuse access to environmental information held by or for it, it must do so under an exemption provided for in the AIE Regulations.
19. Article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations is the relevant provision to consider where the question arises as to whether the requested environmental information is held by or for the public authority concerned. In cases where a public authority has effectively refused a request under article 7(5), this Office must be satisfied that adequate steps have been taken to identify and locate relevant environmental information, having regard to the particular circumstances. In determining whether the steps taken are adequate in the circumstances, a standard of reasonableness must necessarily apply. It is not normally this Office’s function to search for environmental information.
20. The appellant’s position is that Coillte's refusal to make available the requested information based on article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations, whilst, at the same time admitting that information exists, is not justified. She also argues that Coillte should not have limited/restricted his request to “list” format.
I consider that Coillte have not interpreted this request in a reasonable manner. The request seeks certain information on Standard Operating Procedure documents in use by Coillte, and has requested that this information is presented in a particular form or manner, namely an excel spreadsheet in a particular format. Coillte have stated that it does in fact hold a large number of Standard Operating Procedure Documents, and therefore it is clear that Coillte holds information that is relevant to this request. It would appear to be reasonable to suggest that each SOP document contains the information sought by the appellant. Therefore, Coillte cannot rely on article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations and I will annul the internal review decision.
21. Coillte should note that article 7(3)(a) of the AIE Regulations states:
“Where a request has been made to a public authority for access to environmental information in a particular form or manner, access shall be given in that form or manner unless—
(i) the information is already available to the public in another form or manner that is easily accessible, or
(ii) access in another form or manner would be reasonable.”
22. It is therefore the case that Coillte are obliged to provide the appellant with the information sought in the form or manner requested unless it can rely on article 7(3)(a) to provide the information in a different form or manner, or unless it seeks to argue that the request is manifestly unreasonable within the meaning of article 9(2)(a).
23. In circumstances where Coillte have not fully considered the request, I will annul the internal review decision. Coillte should now carry out a new internal review process in respect of this request. While it would be open to me to require Coillte to now identify information within the scope of the request and provide submissions on whether that information should be released, I consider it would be more efficient for this to be done through the carrying out of a new internal review decision-making process. In doing so, should Coillte wish to rely on any exemption provision provided for in article 8 or 9 of the AIE Regulations, it must fully set out its reasons for reaching its conclusions as well as, where relevant, its considerations of article 10 of the AIE Regulations, including paragraphs (3), (4), and (5). It will be open to the appellant to appeal again to this Office should she remain unsatisfied with the outcome of this new internal review.
24. Having carried out a review under article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, on behalf of the Commissioner for Environmental Information, I hereby annul Coillte’s decision under article 7(5) of the Regulations and direct it to provide the appellant with a new internal review decision.
25. 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
Commissioner for Environmental Information