Decision
Ms W and Coillte
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-156043-F4Z6M5
Published on
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-156043-F4Z6M5
Published on
Whether Coillte was justified in refusing access to information requested on the basis of article 3(1) and article 8(a)(i).
30 October 2025
1. On 28 November 2024 the appellant made an AIE request for:
“Full/complete copies of all the original assessments submitted to Coillte by any freelance ecologist in relation (whether in whole or in part) to any (at that time) proposed Bio Class assessments of Coillte controlled lands located wholly or partly in LM12, Co. Leitrim”.
2. On 18 December 2024 Coillte issued its original decision, noting that it had identified three relevant records within the scope of the request and that it was releasing them, subject to redactions under article 8(a)(i), stating:
“[a] public authority shall not make available environmental information in accordance with article 7 where disclosure of the information—
(a) would adversely affect—
(i) the confidentiality of personal information relating to a natural person who has not consented to the disclosure of the information, and where that confidentiality is otherwise protected by law.”
The privacy and confidentiality of such personal information is protected by Data Protection Law and the GDPR, by the Irish Constitution, by the EU European Charter of Fundamental Rights and by the European Convention on Human Rights”.
3. On 30 December 2024 the appellant requested an internal review decision.
4. On 30 January 2025 Coillte issued its internal review decision which affirmed its original decision, in accordance with its position concerning article 8(a)(i) and additionally, relied on article 3(1), stating:
“In considering this issue I also have had regard to the definition of “environmental information” set out in Article 3(1) of the Regulations, the Guidelines document provided by the Minister of the Environment, Community and Local Government on the implementation of the Regulations (the “AIE Guidelines”); Directive 2003/4/EC, upon which the 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), the Aarhus Convention: An Implementation Guide (Second edition, June 2014), and to decisions of the Commissioner for Environmental Information.
I have decided to refuse access to names of Coillte contractors and Coillte personnel on the basis that such information is not “environmental information” as defined in Article 3 of the AIE Regulations.
In that regard, the information sought by the Request does not include or comprise information on any of subparagraphs (a) to (f) of the definition of environmental information. In particular, the information sought is not information on measures or activities affecting or likely to affect or measures or activities designed to protect:
“(a) the state of the elements of the environment, such as air and atmosphere, water, soil, land, landscape and natural sites including wetlands, coastal and marine areas, biological diversity and its components, including genetically modified organisms and the interaction among these elements,
(b) factors, such as substances, energy, noise, radiation or waste, including radioactive waste, emissions, discharges and other releases into the environment, affecting or likely to affect the elements of the environment”.
The redacted information is not information “on” the ecological assessments (BAAFs) and therefore is not environmental information within the meaning of Article 3 of the AIE Regulations. This is because the names of the freelance ecologists and Coillte personnel are entirely incidental to the contents of the assessments. The names of the ecologists and Coillte staff are not integral to the environmental information contained in the BAAF”.
5. The appellant appealed to this Office on 31 January 2025 on the basis of the redactions made by Coillte in the released records.
6. I have been directed by the Commissioner to undertake 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’).
7. 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 its refusal of the information sought under articles 3(1) and 8(a)(i).
8. In her appeal to this Office the appellant outlined her position, noting:
“Coillte have made a number of redactions under Article 3.
b) I respectfully request that OCEI determines if all redactions are legal and fully in compliance with the AIE Regulations.
c) I respectfully request that OCEI determines if the names of freelance ecologists and Coillte personnel in this case fall within the definition of environmental information. I contend that the information redacted is environmental information for purposes of the AIE Regulations.
d) If all or any of the redactions are unlawful, I request that the fee of €20 paid by me to Coillte to obtain the 3 records be reduced (with Coillte providing a refund to me) since work was undertaken by Coillte that was not in accordance with the AIE Regulations”.
9. Coillte were offered the opportunity to make submissions on this appeal but did not do so. I consider Coillte’s position to be as set out in the internal review decision, the contents of which are detailed in paragraph 4.
10. Coillte have sought to rely on articles 3(1) and 8(a)(i) of the AIE Regulations in redactions made to the names of contracted ecologists within the records released.
11. Coillte contend that the names do not constitute ‘environmental information’ as defined in article 3(1). This position has been submitted by Coillte in previous appeals and the Commissioner has adjudicated in published decision OCE-161017-J5W7L2 that staff names in a record otherwise accepted to contain environmental information, is information considered to meet the definition of article 3(1) and cannot be redacted, in cases where no other exemption is successfully applied.
12. Accordingly, as the environmental nature of the records is not under question here, I find that the information pertaining to staff names is environmental information under 3(1) of the Regulations.
13. With respect to the position contended by Coillte that the redacted information enjoys the protection of article 8(a)(i) this issue too has been considered and adjudicated in decision OCE-161017-J5W7L2. In my view the analysis concerning GDPR in that decision at paragraphs 46 to 66 is applicable also to this case. I am satisfied that the information is ‘personal information’, that the requester has a ‘legitimate interest’ in receiving the data pursuant to the request and that its disclosure is necessary to meet that interest. Whilst Coillte have not confirmed if consent was given by the data subjects to disclose the information, I can reasonably assume that it has not been given. I am also satisfied that the personal information at issue in this case does not fall under any of the special categories of personal data meriting higher protection.
14. It is necessary therefore to next consider the public interest balancing test, as noted in OCE-161017-J5W7L2 (paragraph 70) although as a matter of principle a public authority must carry out the balancing exercise in Article 6(1)(f) first and again (if needed) under article 10(3) of the AIE Regulations, in practice it is unnecessary for me to go through the exercise twice because in this decision as the analysis is the same.
15. In this case Coillte have failed to detail its public interest balancing test, obliged under article 10(3) and 10(4) of the Regulations in either its original or internal review decision, with respect to 8(a)(i). It has also failed to detail the adverse impact of disclosure of this information.
16. In the absence of further submissions from Coillte, I have considered broadly the individual data subjects’ interest in the protection of their personal data, taking into account the nature of the specific personal data at issue and the data subject’s rights under Articles 7 and 8 of The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. I have considered the nature of the information is question, namely information regarding a person’s employment. I consider this to be at the less sensitive end of the scale of personal information, given that such information is often freely made available by data subjects on the internet and elsewhere.
17. I note that the contractors are freelance ecologists who were contracted by Coillte to undertake work to which the records refer. I cannot see how the release of their names would produce an adverse impact as professionals carrying out duties in the course of their work for Coillte. It is reasonable to assume that contractors of this kind advertise their services and openly engage with public authorities in the process of providing services under contract. It is also fair to say that the information within the records would not appear to be sensitive, contentious or likely to cause an adverse impact on the individuals named within it, if released.
18. In favour of release, I consider that there is an important general interest in the disclosure of environmental information to meet the purpose of the AIE Directive, in particular by contributing to a greater awareness of environmental matters, a free exchange of views, more effective participation by the public in environmental decision-making and, eventually, to a better environment, as set out in recital 1 to the AIE Directive, and the rights in Articles 11 and 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Right of the European Union.
19. Weighing the above interests in the balance, I conclude that the public interest in releasing the information outweighs the interests served by the refusal.
20. Having carried out a review under article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, I annul Coillte’s decision and direct it to release the redacted information in the records concerned.
21. 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