Decision
Ms X and Coillte Teoranta
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-154995-M4Z8K4 and OCE-155008-D4Q8H6
Published on
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-154995-M4Z8K4 and OCE-155008-D4Q8H6
Published on
Whether Coillte was justified in refusing the requests under article 9(2)(b) of the AIE Regulations on the basis that they were formulated in too general a manner
3 October 2025
1. The appeals relate to two requests for information submitted to Coillte by email, respectively, on 20 September 2024 and 3 October 2024, by the same requester. As each request encompasses information of an identical nature albeit in respect of different timespans, it is considered appropriate to address both in one single decision. The text of each request is as follows (emphasis made by requester):
“Can you please provide, by email, copies of all work emails both sent and received by [the Director of Regulatory Affairs of Coillte] for the period Tuesday 7 May 2024 to Monday 13 May 2024 (both dates inclusive). Information requested includes emails sent and received by [said official] from both any work email address and any home address, if the subject matter is work related.
“Please provide a schedule of records with the decision.”
Request 2 made on 3 October 2024 (appeal OCE-155008-D4Q8H6):
“Can you please provide, by email, copies of all work emails both sent and received by [the Director of Regulatory Affairs of Coillte] for the period Tuesday 14 May 2024 to Friday 17 May 2024 (both dates inclusive). Information requested includes emails sent and received by [said official] from both any work email address and any home address, if the subject matter is work related.
“Please provide a schedule of records with the decision.”
2. Each request continued by noting that should Coillte need to “clarify any aspect of this request”, it could contact the appellant by email.
3. Coillte conveyed to the appellant its view in writing, in respect of Request 1 on 20 September 2024 and in respect of Request 2 on 16 October 2024, that the requests were formulated in too general a manner and that it was complying with article 7(8) of the AIE Regulations to invite the appellant to submit a more refined request in each case, as it appeared to Coillte that the requests encompassed all correspondence sent and received by the named official without specifying a subject matter, for which reason the nature of the environmental information being sought was not clear to Coillte. The appellant was invited in each case to seek more specific environmental information by reference to a particular business activity conducted by the named official or information relating to a particular subject matter, or information relating to a particular project the official was involved in. Coillte’s letter made explicit reference to the fact that article 9(2)(b) of the AIE Regulations provides that a public authority may refuse a request where the request remains formulated in too general a manner. Further assistance was offered to the appellant to make a valid request in each case with the provision of an email address in order to do so.
4. On 24 September and 16 October 2024, the appellant responded to Coillte respectively in relation to Request 1 and Request 2, noting disagreement with Coillte’s view that the request in each case was made in too general a manner and reiterating that the requests were for environmental information contained within the emails referenced in the requests.
5. On 18 October and 30 October 2024, Coillte issued decision letters, respectively, in response to Requests 1 and 2, refusing each on the basis that the requests were not for environmental information in accordance with article 6 of the AIE Regulations, noting that it had complied with its obligation to seek a refinement of each request, invitations in both cases having been refused. Each letter noted, without prejudice to Coillte’s position, that should the requests be deemed to be for environmental information, it would rely on articles 9(2)(b) and 9(2)(a), expressed in that order, to refuse the requests on the basis, respectively, that they were“formulated in too general a manner” and were“manifestly unreasonable having regard to the volume or range of information sought” . The letters described in detail the reasons why Coillte considered the requests were not for environmental information and explained its alternative reliance on articles 9(2)(b) and 9(2)(a), respectively.
6. On 16 November and 29 November 2024, the appellant submitted internal review requests in respect of Requests 1 and 2, respectively.
7. On 16 December and 23 December 2024, Coillte issued internal review decision letters in respect of Requests 1 and 2, respectively. In the letters, the content of each of which is identical, Coillte affirmed its original decisions which, it stated, were to refuse the requested information in each case on the basis of article 9(2)(b). Each letter otherwise affirmed “the Initial Decision”, relying“on the reasoning therein”. The internal reviewer went on to refuse the information requested, in each letter“on the basis that the Request is not ‘for environmental information’ and has therefore not been made in accordance with Article 6 of the AIE Regulations.”
8. The appellant submitted appeals to this Office, arising from Coillte’s refusal to provide the requested information in Requests 1 and 2, on 3 and 5 January 2025, respectively, contending that the requests were for environmental information and were, accordingly, in compliance with article 6 of the AIE Regulations.
9. 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 Coillte. In addition, I have had regard to:
• 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);
• Directive 2003/4/EC (the AIE Directive), upon which the AIE Regulations are based;
• 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
• the Aarhus Convention—An Implementation Guide (Second edition, June 2014) (‘the Aarhus Guide’).
10. What follows does not comment or make findings on each and every argument advanced but all relevant points have been considered.
11. In accordance with article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, my role is to review the public authority's internal review decision and to affirm, annul or vary it. In its decisions on these requests, Coillte states that it is refusing the requests on the basis that they were not requests “for environmental information” and were therefore not made in accordance with article 6 of the AIE regulations.
12. That fact notwithstanding, it is appropriate to note that article 6 of the AIE Regulations stipulates the form that a request should take, including that it be in writing or electronic form, state that it is made under the AIE Regulations and state“(1)(d) in terms that are as specific as possible, the environmental information that is the subject of the request” . From the correspondence between the parties described above, it is clear that Coillte sought specificity from the appellant in respect of the environmental information being sought, its having been of the view that the requests were not made in accordance with article 6(1)(d). However, Coillte goes on to apply both 9(2)(b) and 9(2)(a) to the requests, and I therefore consider that the scope of this review is more appropriately whether Coillte was justified in relying on article 9(2)(b) and/or article 9(2)(a) of the AIE Regulations, which it cited as alternative grounds by which to refuse each of the requests.
13. Article 9(2)(b) of the AIE Regulations provides that a public authority may refuse to make environmental information available where the request remains formulated in too general a manner, taking into account article 7(8). Article 9(2)(b) seeks to transpose article 4(1)(c) of the AIE Directive, which provides that Member States may provide for a request for environmental information to be refused if the request is formulated in too general a manner, taking into account article 3(3), and, in turn, is based on part of article 4(3)(b) of the Aarhus Convention.
14. Article 9(2)(b) (as indeed article 9(2)(a)) must be read alongside article 10 of the AIE Regulations, which provides for certain limitations on the ability of a public authority to refuse environmental information. Article 10(3) of the AIE Regulations requires a public authority to consider each request on an individual basis and weigh the public interest served by disclosure against the interest served by refusal and article 10(4) of the AIE Regulations provides that the grounds for refusal of a request shall be interpreted on a restrictive basis having regard to the public interest served by disclosure. Article 7(4)(c) of the Regulations requires a public authority to specify the reasons for refusal of a request.
15. The Minister’s Guidance at paragraph 12.8 states the following:
“Article 9[(2) …] clarifies that a public authority may refuse to make information available if the request is considered unreasonable due to the range of material sought, if the request is too general or if the material requested is not yet completed. Public authorities are requested to invoke these grounds for refusal sparingly, and to assist the applicant (to reformulate a request, for example) as appropriate.”
16. In the letters that issued to the appellant that sought a refinement of each request, Coillte had indicated the following (emphasis is Coillte’s):
“As currently worded, your request is too general in that you appear to be requesting a copy of all correspondence sent and received by [the Director of Regulatory Affairs of Coillte] for a particular period without specifying a subject matter. It is not clear from your request what environmental information you are seeking and as outlined above, I would be grateful if you could please clarify your request and be more specific on the environmental information you are seeking. As the Commissioner for Environmental Information stated in the decision of Cllr Thomas Cullen and the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government (CEI/15/0018): ‘The wording of an AIE request should not require a public authority to read between the lines, or to guess at the precise subject the requester has in mind’”.
17. Each letter went on to state the following (emphasis is Coillte’s):
18. “The subject matter expert has indicated that it may be possible to provide information to you if your request sought more specific environmental information which avoids it being determined as worded in too general in manner. For example, you may wish to outline what environmental information you are seeking by reference to a particular business activity conducted by [the Director of Regulatory Affairs of Coillte] or information relating to a particular subject matter, or information relating to a particular project [said official] is involved in.” Each letter went on to“offer further assistance” for the making of a valid request.
19. As the internal review decisions that issued in respect of the two requests affirm and rely substantially on each of the original decision letters that issued in response to each request, I consider it appropriate to include in this decision relevant extracts from the latter to demonstrate Coillte’s reasoning behind relying on article 9(2)(b), as follows:
“It is not open to a requester to make such a request under the AIE Regulations…Article 6(1)(d) provides that a request must ‘state, in terms that are as specific as possible, the environmental information that is the subject of the request’. Not only did your Request fail to adequately specify the environmental information requested, it did not specify any environmental information at all the subject of the Request.”
20. Each letter went on to indicate the following:
“The AIE Regulations do not provide a general right to members of the public to seek a public authority to fish for environmental information in general terms. Members of the public do not have a right to simply seek ‘environmental information’ as a general concept within any specified category of information. The information requested must be a specified category of environmental information.
“It was for the foregoing reason that we sought clarity in the Refinement Invitation about what environmental information you were seeking. However, you chose not to refine your Request except to limit the Request to emails sent or received on business days.
“If public authorities were obliged to respond to requests formulated in the manner of your Request, a public authority would be obliged to trawl through whatever category of information a requester may specify to determine whether that information contained environmental information. The AIE Regulations do not oblige a public authority to do that. Instead, the AIE Regulations place the requester under the initial burden of seeking a specified category of environmental information. My decision is that you have not met that burden and I therefore refuse your request.”
21. According to Coillte’s initial decision letters, the appellant’s response to its request for refinement in each of Requests 1 and 2, was as follows [appellant’s emphasis in each case]:
Request 1
“I am requesting all environmental information covered by this AIE request. It is for this reason that the AIE request covers only a period of 5 working days.
“I do not agree with your opinion that the AIE request as worded is too general. I am requesting all emails sent and received by [the Director of Regulatory Affairs of Coillte] for the 5 working days noted (7 May - 13 May both dates inclusive), where the email relates in whole or part to environmental information.”
Request 2
“I am requesting all environmental information covered by this AIE request. It is for this reason that the AIE request covers only a period of 4 working days.
“I do not agree with your opinion that the AIE request as worded is too general. I am requesting all emails sent and received by [the Director of Regulatory Affairs of Coillte] for the 4 working days noted (14 May - 17 May both dates inclusive), where the email relates in whole or part to environmental information.”
22. In her respective appeals to this Office, the appellant stated that“I contend that the AIE request is a request for environmental information and therefore does comply with Article 6 of the AIE Regulations” .
23. Both requests under review span email correspondence, either sent to or received by a named Coillte regulatory official, from or to work or personal email addresses, in the latter case if correspondence is work related, within two respective and specific time periods consisting in one case of five working days and in the other of four working days. Beyond this detail, no specification is made in either request regarding the subject matter or category of information that is sought.
24. Article 9(2)(b), which mirrors Article 3(3) of the AIE Directive, provides that a request may be refused when it is“formulated in too general a manner, taking into account article 7(8)” . Article 7(8) provides for a public authority’s seeking of“a more specific request” and an offer of assistance to a requester in the preparation of a request, within one month of receipt of a request it considers as having been formulated in too general a manner. I am satisfied that Coillte has demonstrated that it has complied with the second limb of article 9(2)(b), having contacted the appellant with a view to refine the request in each case and offering assistance in that endeavour, within the prescribed timeframe. The question that remains for me to consider is whether it has justified refusal on the basis of the first limb, namely on the basis that the requests were formulated in too general a manner.
25. I note the reference made by Coillte, in both its original decision letters, to a recent decision of the Commissioner in appeal OCE-143025-X5B2B5 , in which he affirmed the decision of An Bord Pleanála, the public authority in that case, to refuse a request on the grounds that“Article 6(1)(d) [of the AIE Regulations] states that a request for environmental information shall ‘state in terms that are as specific as possible, the environmental information that is the subject of the request’” . Though the outcome in that appeal turned on the relevance of article 6(1)(d), it is highly significant in my view that the content of the article has application to Coillte’s reliance on article 9(2)(b) in the two requests under review, as refusal under this ground turns on the terms or terminology by which a request for information is made, that is, on its having been made in “too general a manner” or, in other words, with a lack of sufficient specificity to lend itself to an adequate response by a public authority. The whole basis of article 9(2)(b) is to ensure that requests that are made in too general a manner are rectified following an invitation by a public authority to particularise the information requested and to assist in that matter, all in order to preclude the possibility that a request be refused under this article. While invitations to do this occurred in the cases under review, and assistance offered, the lack of response on the part of the appellant is notable.
26. While the original decision letters also make reference to an older decision made by a former Commissioner, I find it to be relevant to the cases at hand as well. That decision was made in appeal CEI/15/0018 , and it affirmed a decision by the then Department of Environment, Community and Local Government to refuse one part of a request on the basis of article 9(2)(b) because,inter alia , the requester“did not specify any relevant subject matter” . The Commissioner in that case considered that the Department’s refusal to grant the information requested was“appropriate” and“justified” . As noted by Coillte, in the cited appeal the Commissioner noted that an individual might have a particular subject matter in mind when submitting a request, but it is not the job of a public authority to“read between the lines, or to guess” . The Department in that case had sought a refinement of the request but the appellant did not engage with the invitation.
27. Whilst this Office has not been provided with the records that have been requested, I consider that it is not a requirement that I review them for the purposes of this decision.
28. Having considered the wording of the request and the nature of the information sought, I am satisfied that Coillte was justified in refusing each of the requests based on article 9(2)(b). The wording of this request is very general, and when considering it in relation to the hundreds of requests this Office has sight of, I consider it to be on the extreme end of the scale as to where article 9(2)(b) might apply. Whereas a request for a certain category of information contained within emails is sufficiently specific to enable a public authority to search for relevant information, a request that requires a public authority to “trawl through” (in Coillte’s words) emails contained both in a work email account and potentially also in one or more personal email accounts, is sufficient in my view to engage article 9(2)(b) of the AIE Regulations.
29. Whilst there is an onus on public authorities, by virtue of the AIE regime, to be responsive to requests for environmental information, there is equally an onus on requesters to be clear and as specific as possible in the text of their requests such as to allow public authorities to carry out their duties under the access to environmental information regime. In the two requests under review, the appellant has not done so. I do not consider that requests of this type are of the type envisaged by the Aarhus regime, and I consider that this is an appropriate case to which 9(2)(b) should apply.
30. I note that should Coillte be required to process this request, it would be necessary for it to determine whether each email concerned contained environmental information. While given the relevant employee’s position, it is likely that many of the emails concerned would contain environmental information, the general wording of the request would add to the task required here, and also persuades me that article 9(2)(b) should apply.
31. As I have found Coillte’s decisions in each case to be justified under article 9(2)(b), it is now necessary to weigh the factors in favour of refusal of the requested information against those in favour of disclosure, that is, to apply the public interest balancing test to Coillte’s decisions, in alignment with article 10(3) of the AIE Regulations.
32. In favour of release in this case, I have considered the general public interest in the release of environmental information as well as the public interest in the activities and work of the Director of Regulatory Affairs of Coillte.
33. In favour of refusal, I have considered the interest in ensuring that AIE requests can be processed in as efficient a manner as possible, and the resources that would be required to be expended in order to retrieve, collate and make a decision upon the information contained within the requested emails.
34. In my view, there is a public interest in ensuring the proper administration of public authorities and ensuring that the administrative burden placed on them by virtue of the AIE Regulations is not unduly onerous or is such as could negatively affect their day-to-day administration or operations. This is the purpose of the exemptions contained in articles 9(2)(b) and 9(2)(a). Having considered all the relevant factors in this case, I find that the interest in refusal outweighs the public interest in release.
35. As I am satisfied that Coillte was justified in refusing the requests under article 9(2)(b), there is no requirement for me to assess its further reliance on article 9(2)(a) for that purpose.
36. Having carried out a review under article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, I affirm Coillte’s decision to refuse each of the requests under article 9(2)(b) of the AIE Regulations.
37. 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