Cinneadh
Mr. Ken Foxe & DAA Public Limited Company
Ó Oifig an Choimisinéara um Fhaisnéis Comhshaoil
Cásuimhir: OCE-155455-Z2J7G6
Foilsithe
Teanga: Níl leagan Gaeilge den mhír seo ar fáil.
Ó Oifig an Choimisinéara um Fhaisnéis Comhshaoil
Cásuimhir: OCE-155455-Z2J7G6
Foilsithe
Teanga: Níl leagan Gaeilge den mhír seo ar fáil.
Whether DAA was justified in refusing access to certain information in eleven (11) records under article 8(a)(i) of the AIE Regulations, and also to information in eight (8) records which are considered to fall within the scope of the appellant’s request, under articles 9(1)(b) and/or 9(1)(c) of the AIE Regulations
1 May 2026
Context
1. DAA is a public limited company, responsible for the management, operation and development of Dublin and Cork Airports, Irish and International airport retail management and international airport investment. The Minister for Transport is DAA’s primary shareholder, and the Department of Transport oversees the company's compliance with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform Code of Practice for Governance of State Bodies. More information is available here: https://www.gov.ie/en/policy-information/bb3245-airports/
2. The “Dublin Airport passenger cap” is a planning related matter, which currently limits the number of passengers at Dublin Airport to 32 million a year. In recent years, the regulator (the Irish Aviation Authority (IAA)) placed limits on slots for aircraft to take off and land at Dublin Airport to prevent a breach of the passenger cap. At this time, the High Court has suspended enforcement of the limit pending the outcome of legal challenges and is awaiting a ruling from European courts (See judgment in [2024] IEHC 758 delivered on 11 December 2024, available here ). The matter, in general, is regularly reported on in the media and political fora. In February 2026, the Cabinet approved draft legislation to lift the current passenger cap. (See response in PQ [15200/26] Thursday, 26 February 2026, available here for further context.)
AIE Request & Decision
3. On 14 October 2024, the appellant submitted the following request for information:
“Under the AIE Regulations, I am seeking the following: copies of all correspondence between the daa and the Department of Transport and/or the Department of the Taoiseach with regard to the Dublin Airport passenger cap. This request to cover the period 1 Jan 2024 to date and should include any attachments or appendices that were included as part of the correspondence. I would prefer to receive this information electronically, ideally in its original electronic format. If you need to clarify anything in this request, please contact me via email.”
4. DAA acknowledged the appellant’s AIE request on 8 November 2024. Later, on 12 November 2024, DAA notified the appellant that “due to the complexity of [the] request”, it would not be possible to make a decision on same within the required one-month timeframe and invoked an extension up to 13 December 2024 with reference to article 7(2)(b) of the AIE Regulations.
5. DAA provided an original decision on 13 December 2024, refusing access to twenty-nine (29) records identified in response to the appellant’s request, under article 9(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations. The appellant requested an internal review of DAA’s decision.
6. DAA issued its internal review decision on 10 January 2025 which affirmed the original decision under article 9(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations based on ongoing statutory and litigation processes.
Appeal Chronology
7. On 16 January 2025, the appellant submitted an appeal to this Office. On 23 January 2025, DAA was provided with a copy of the appellant’s statement of appeal and was requested to provide a submission on any exceptions that it wished to rely upon and to explain its decision(s) on the specific information/records at issue.
8. On 14 February 2025, DAA made the following submission to this Office: “Access to 29 records was refused under the AIE Regulations pursuant to Articles 9(1)(b) … The 32m terminal cap at Dublin Airport (the “Terminal Cap”) is subject to an active Section 152 of the Planning & Development Act 2000 as amended. Consequently, it would not be appropriate for correspondence and documentation regarding the Terminal Cap and issues inextricably linked to this case, to be released while the issue remains in a statutory process.”
9. The above submission was accompanied by a schedule of records detailing thirty-nine (39) records considered by DAA; and copies of these records were made available to this Office. The schedule listed twenty-seven (27) records as refused under article 9(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations (Records 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36 & 38). In addition, ten (10) records (Records 3, 4, 8, 11, 23, 23.1, 24, 25, 30 & 34) were listed as “Out of Scope”. One (1) record (Record 21) was listed as “not within scope of environmental information definition” (presumably a reference to article 3(1) of the AIE Regulations), and one (1) further record (Record 37) was listed as “Publicly available”.
10. On 13 March 2025, the investigator assigned to this appeal wrote to DAA with a number of administrative queries regarding the records provided to this Office, including seeking further context as to why certain records had been considered by DAA as in/out of scope of the appellant’s request. The investigator also sought further information from DAA on its reliance on article 9(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations, including the specific statutory process(es) or litigation referred to by it and asked DAA to explain why it considered that, on balance, the public interest would not be better served by the disclosure of the records. The investigator also asked DAA to explain what redactions, if any, DAA considered might be made to allow for part release of the records, in accordance with article 10(5) of the Regulations.
11. On 3 April 2025, DAA provided a copy of Records 9, 10, 12, 13 and 28 directly to the appellant. Certain redactions were applied to these records, however, with no explanation as to the nature of these redactions and no indication of any exceptions under the AIE Regulations which DAA considered relevant to withholding information contained therein. Next, on 11 April 2025, DAA provided a “revised decision letter” directly to the appellant, releasing five (5) records in full (Records 2, 18, 19, 29 and 37) and noting partial release of twenty-two (22) records (Records 1, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36 and 38), subject to redactions. Three (3) further records were listed as refused in full (Records 5, 6 and 7). Some inconsistencies can be noted with this correspondence e.g. Record 11 is only listed in the Schedule of Records and not the cover letter itself. More significantly, the cover letter states: “A schedule of records with this letter is attached. This lists the records that were determined to be relevant to your request. Where I have decided to refuse access to a record, it specifies the Article of the AIE Regulations under which this refusal has been made.” However, no specific provisions of the AIE Regulation are cited in the schedule.
12. On 11 April 2025, DAA also provided a submission to this Office. It outlined the specific statutory/ongoing litigation processes relevant to its decision-making, the considered relevance of the withheld information to these processes, and “public interest considerations”. DAA’s submission also responded to some of the administrative queries raised by the Investigator in her correspondence of 13 March 2025. On 16 April 2025, the investigator wrote again to DAA on outstanding matters. It responded with final clarifications on 17 April 2025.
13. I am directed by the Commissioner for Environmental Information to carry out a review of this appeal. I have now completed this review under article 12(5) of the Regulations. In so doing, I have had regard to submissions made by DAA and by the appellant. I have also reviewed the records at issue. 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’).
14. What follows does not comment or make findings on each and every argument advanced, but all relevant points have been considered.
15. It is clear that administrative errors occurred in the handling of this AIE request by DAA, including the non-identification of records, unclear linkage of records to the AIE request, and above all, inadequate reasoning. For example, when records are deemed out of scope or exempt, public authorities should explain why and, if necessary, redact the irrelevant or exempt information rather than withholding the entire document.
16. The requirements of the AIE Regulations include the obligation to provide reasoning for decisions, which is clearly outlined in articles 7(4) and 11(4) of the Regulations and which the High Court has clearly indicated must involve more than simply invoking the statutory ground upon which the decision-maker seeks to rely (see Right to Know v An Taoiseach [2018 IEHC 372 ]). The fundamental purpose of such a duty to provide reasons (i.e. so that a requester can properly understand the basis for refusal) is, in my view, significantly undermined if a public authority amends those reasons throughout the course of an appeal to this Office.
17. In respect of Record 21, the schedule of records provided by DAA to this Office lists Record 21 as “not within scope of environmental information definition”, with an additional note “Email just to share attachment”. These comments do not provide a sufficient level of analysis to ground a decision that the information is not environmental information within the meaning of the definition provided in article 3(1) of the AIE Regulations. Following a request for clarification by this Office, DAA advised that, “Record 21 was considered to be out of scope because it was an email with no mention of the passenger cap. Record 22 (which did mention the passenger cap), is the attachment included in Record 21.” It seems to me that where an attachment to an email falls within the scope of an AIE request, to then deem the text of the email itself to be outside the scope of the request, unless it explicitly refers to a clearly separate subject matter, represents an unnecessarily narrow interpretation of the request. Such an interpretation is not in keeping with the purpose and intent of the AIE Regulations. For this reason, I will consider Record 21 within scope for the purposes of my review.
18. Lastly, I would note that DAA has received a number of decisions from this Office in recent times setting out how the provisions of the AIE Regulations operate, including OCE-153314-C1S1K5 as pointed to by the appellant in his statement of appeal. That decision, issued to DAA on 16 December 2024, clearly highlighted that article 9(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations is not class-based exception and that any legitimate application requires a public authority to prove that disclosure would cause specific harm/adverse effect. As such, I share the appellant’s frustration that the internal review decision here, made by DAA on 10 January 2025, clearly does not satisfy this requirement. As such, I did give serious consideration to simply directing release of the information identified in this case. However, I consider that it is not open to me to direct release of a large number of records which include certain information that is outside of scope of the AIE request, given that I have not carried out an assessment of whether any of the exceptions in the AIE Regulations in respect of confidentiality (e.g. article 9(1)(c) of the AIE Regulations) in fact apply to the redacted information. Such an analysis falls outside the scope of this decision, which solely relates to information falling to be released with reference to the AIE request made on 14 October 2024 as outlined above.
19. In accordance with article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, my role is to review DAA’s internal review decision and to affirm, annul or vary it. Where appropriate in the circumstances of an appeal, the Commissioner will require the public authority to make available environmental information to the appellant. As outlined above, DAA updated its position during the course of this appeal. An overview of DAA’s internal review decision and subsequent position is contained at Appendix A. DAA’s decision-making on this AIE request involved consideration of a total of thirty-nine (39) records. Not all of these records were identified to the appellant; however, all records have been taken into account for the purpose of this review.
20. It is clear from the comments of the Court of Appeal inRedmond & Another v Commissioner for Environmental Information & Another [2020] IECA 83, at paragraph 51, that the nature of a review by this Office is inquisitorial, rather than adversarial in nature. The extent of the inquiry is determined by this Office and not by the parties to the appeal. A review by this Office is considered to bede novo , which means that it is based on the circumstances and the law as they pertain at the time of the decision.
21. Accordingly, in the circumstances of this case, I consider it appropriate to firstly determine which records are outside scope of the AIE request, before proceeding to consider any relevant exceptions in respect of the remaining information.
Records outside scope
22. The appellant’s AIE request was for “copies of all correspondence between [DAA] and the Department of Transport and/or the Department of the Taoiseach with regard to the Dublin Airport passenger cap”, during the period 1 January 2024 and 14 October 2024.
23. I have examined each of the thirty-nine (39) records provided to this Office by DAA in detail, and in the context of the appellant’s AIE request and appeal to this Office. Based on this examination, I firstly consider it appropriate to remove twenty-one (21) records from the scope of this review, on the following basis (see further details at Appendix B ):
(a) Records 2, 18, 19, 29 and 37 – These five (5) records have been granted in full.
(b) Records 3, 23, 23.1, 24, 30, 31, and 34 – These seven (7) records are outside of the specific date range covered by the AIE request.
(c) Records 3, 4, 8, and 25 – These three (3) records do not contain information related to the specific subject of the AIE request.
(d) Records 9, 10, 11, 12 and 36 – These five (5) records have been part-granted, and do not contain any further information related to the specific subject of the AIE request.
(e) Record 27 – This one (1) record is a duplication (of Record 17).
Records within scope
24. As evidenced at Appendix A , while DAA initially relied on article 9(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations in refusing the appellant’s request, its revised decision is not clear in terms of which provisions it seeks to rely upon. It is clear however, based on my examination, that in the case of certain records, the withheld content can no longer be linked to article 9(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations and, as alluded to in DAA’s submissions, relates more specifically to other confidentiality concerns.
25. The following 18 (eighteen) records are within scope of this review. I consider it efficient to group these records on the following basis (see further details at Appendix C):
(a) Records 1, 15, 16, 17, 21, 26, 28, 33, 35, and 38 – Each of these ten (10) records have been partially released to the appellant. The redactions applied by DAA concern names, email addresses and, in some cases, contact numbers of staff of DAA, the Department of Transport, the Department of the Taoiseach, and the IAA. DAA did not seek to rely on any of the exceptions contained in the AIE Regulations with respect to this information although its submissions to this Office included the following general description of the redactions – “Data (Article 8): Names, contact details, and other personal information to protect the privacy of individuals involved”. DAA did not provide any further detail as to the basis on which it considered such protection grounded.
(b) Records 5, 6, 7, 13, 14, 20, 22, and 32 – Three (3) of these records have been withheld in full (Record 5, 6 and 7) and the remaining five (5) records have been partially released to the appellant. The required analysis of these records is more complicated, not least, as in some instances, large swathes of content do not objectively sit within scope of the appellant’s AIE request, as correspondence “with regard to the passenger cap”. Again, in its revised decision, DAA did not seek to rely on any of the exceptions contained in the AIE Regulations with respect to this information. In its submissions to this Office, it provided the following general description of the redactions – “Out of scope of the request and/or commercial confidential/sensitive (Article 8 (a)): Financial, commercial, scientific, technical, or other information whose disclosure could result in material financial loss or gain, or prejudice the competitive position of daa plc.” DAA did not provide any further detail as to the basis on which it considered certain information out of scope or how it considered commercial confidentially/sensitivity to be relevant. It did however clarify its position that article 9(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations was applicable to Records 5, 6 and 7.
Summary of Scope
26. Having regard to the above (and Appendix C ), my decision in this case is concerned with whether DAA was justified in refusing access to information, falling within scope of the appellant’s request, as follows:
(i) All redacted information in respect of ten (10) records, that is Records 1, 15, 16, 17, 21, 26, 28, 33, 35, and 38 and to certain redacted information in one (1) record, that is Record 20, under article 8(a)(i) of the AIE Regulations
(ii) Certain redacted information in respect of eight (8) records, that is Records 5, 6, 7, 13, 14, 20, 22, and 32, under article 9(1)(b) and/or 9(1)(c) of the AIE Regulations.
27. It should be noted that, while I am required by article 12(5)(b) of the AIE Regulations to specify reasons for my decision, I must also be careful not to disclose withheld information in my decisions. This means that the detail that I can give about the content of the record(s) and the extent to which I can describe certain matters in my analysis is limited.
Articles 8 and 9 of the AIE Regulations
28. The AIE regime derives, originally, from the Aarhus Convention, which places duties on public authorities in relation to providing access to environmental information. Article 7(1) of the AIE Regulations provides that a public authority shall, notwithstanding any other statutory provision and subject only to these Regulations, make available to the applicant any environmental information, the subject of the request, held by, or for, the public authority. This provision transposes Article 3(1) of the AIE Directive, which in turn is based on Article 4(1) of the Aarhus Convention.
29. Articles 8 and 9 of the AIE Regulations provide certain grounds for refusal of information. Both articles must be read alongside article 10 of the AIE Regulations. Article 10(1) provides that notwithstanding articles 8 and 9(1)(c) of the AIE Regulations, a request for environmental information shall not be refused where the request relates to information on emissions into the environment. Article 10(3) 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. Article 10(4) 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 10(5) provides that nothing in articles 8 or 9 shall authorise a public authority not to make available environmental information which, although held with information to which article 8 or 9 relates, may be separated from such information.
Article 8(a)(i) of the AIE Regulations
30. Article 8(a)(i) of the AIE Regulations provides that a public authority shall not make available environmental information where disclosure of the information would adversely affect 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. This provision seeks to transpose Article 4(2)(f) of the AIE Directive, which in turn is based on Article 4(4)(f) of the Aarhus Convention.
31. I have set out at Appendix C , eleven (11) records (Records 1, 15, 16, 17, 21, 20, 26, 28, 33, 35, and 38) wherein certain withheld information may constitute “personal information” for the purposes of the AIE Regulations and therefore may invoke article 8(a)(i). The redactions applied by DAA concern names, email addresses and, in some cases, contact numbers of DAA, Department of Transport, Department of the Taoiseach, and IAA staff.
32. In its decision, DAA provided no evidence that any of the individuals concerned did not consent to disclosure of the above information. DAA also provided no explanation as to whether the confidentiality of any such information is provided by law, nor did it identify any legal protections in respect of confidentiality, which might apply in this case. No attempt was made by DAA to identify whether any such confidentiality would be adversely affected by the release of the above information. Furthermore, while DAA noted, in its submission to this Office, an intention to “safeguard personal information”, it did not outline any consideration of the public interest balancing test obliged under article 10(3) and 10(4) regarding the information concerned, nor did it detail the adverse impact of disclosure of this information.
33. I have set out this Office’s approach to the personal information provisions contained within the AIE Regulations, and in particular its interaction with the GDPR, at length in multiple decisions in recent times (including OCE-135716-R4G8T1 and OCE-137000-X7Y9N3 ). Considering the specific information at issue here (in this case, public sector employees names, email addresses and contact numbers) and the lack of engagement from the DAA on this point, I do not think it is necessary to set out a detailed analysis of the article 8(a)(i) provision. I have been clear in previous decisions that those of us working in the civil and public sector should identify ourselves, in the spirit of public sector values such as accessibility, transparency and integrity. While it may be the case that in some circumstances it is not appropriate for staff names or other relevant details to be released through AIE, I am satisfied that this should only occur in exceptional circumstances. I am not persuaded that such circumstances are present in this case.
34. Accordingly, I find that article 8(a)(i) does not apply to this information.
Article 9(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations
35. Article 9(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations provides that a public authority may refuse to make available environmental information where disclosure of the information requested would adversely affect the course of justice (including criminal inquiries and disciplinary inquiries). This provision seeks to transpose Article 4(2)(c) of the AIE Directive, which in turn is based on Article 4(4)(c) of the Aarhus Convention.
36. I have set out at Appendix C , eight (8) records in respect of which article 9(1)(b) may provide DAA with grounds to refuse any or all of the information. It should be noted that my considerations here relate solely to the limited information within these records considered by me to fall within scope of the AIE request.
For clarity, the information in scope for release is:
• Record 5: Page 13 (of 21) only, which is titled ‘IAA decision on winter parameters and engagement on summer 25 parameters’.
• Record 6: Page 11 (of 19) only, which is titled ‘Slot Coordination and the 32mppa Cap’.
• Record 7: Pages 14 and 15 (of 23) only, which are titled ‘Slot Coordination & 32 Million Planning Cap’ and ‘IAA Draft Decision on Summer 2025 Capacity’.
• Record 13: All redacted information in this record.
• Record 14: All redacted information in this record.
• Record 20: Redacted paragraph (not refenced by DAA in its decision-making), being paragraph 1 in email communication dated 12 February 2024 @ 15:00.
• Record 22: Redacted paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 under subheading ‘Development of Infrastructure at Dublin and Cork Airports’.
• Record 32: Redacted sentences in paragraph 5 of this record.
37. It is clear from the wording of article 9(1)(b) that there must be some adverse effect on the course of justice in order for the exception to apply. While the AIE Regulations do not explicitly provide that the burden of proof rests with the public authority in relation to justifying a refusal to make information available, I consider that the scheme of the AIE Regulations and the Directive makes it clear that there is a presumption in favour of release of environmental information. This view aligns with the decision of the Court of Justice of the EU in C-619/19 Land Baden Württemberg v DR (see paragraph 69 of this judgment). Although that decision relates to the exception contained in article 9(2)(d) of the Regulations, it contains some useful guidance in relation to the application of exceptions generally.
38. I am not satisfied that DAA has explained how the actual information at issue for release could adversely affect the course of justice or undermine its position in specific statutory/ongoing litigation processes referred to. As DAA ought to be aware, the mere fact that information may reference ongoing legal or statutory proceedings does not, in and of itself, establish that its disclosure would adversely affect the course of justice. In its submission to this Office, DAA argued that the release of the records “identified for redaction and labelled as “subject to legal proceedings” in [the Revised Decision schedule] may adversely affect the course of justice by prejudicing any or all of various court proceedings.” However, this statement, as well as some limited examples provided by DAA in its submission to this Office do not, in my view, establish a reasonably foreseeable risk that release of the information requested will adversely affect the course of justice.
39. I have carefully reviewed the information at issue, and in coming to my conclusion have put particular weight on the fact that much of the information concerned is already in the public domain, noting it concerns what has been a well-documented and much reported on high profile issue. Overall, in the circumstances of this case and having examined the information at issue for release, I find that article 9(1)(b) does not apply to this information. That being the case, there is no need for me to consider the public interest balancing test set out by article 10(3) and 10(4) of the AIE Regulations.
Article 9(1)(c) of the AIE Regulations
40. Article 9(1)(c) of the AIE Regulations provides that a public authority may refuse to make available environmental information where disclosure of the information requested would adversely affect commercial or industrial confidentiality, where such confidentiality is provided for in national or European law to protect a legitimate economic interest. This provision seeks to transpose Article 4(2)(d) of the AIE Directive, which, in turn, is based on Article 4(4)(d) of the Aarhus Convention.
41. This provision is designed to protect “commercially sensitive information”, a contention which was referred to in DAA’s revised decision letter and its submission to this Office; however, without any substantive reasoning for the application of article 9(1)(c) to the refusal of the information sought by the appellant. In any event, in view of myde novo review function, my considerations here relate solely to the limited information within Records 5, 6, 7, 13, 14, 20, 22, and 32 (see Appendix C and paragraph 35. above) falling within scope of the AIE request.
42. I have set out this Office’s approach to the commercial confidentiality provision contained within the AIE Regulations, and have broken down the crucial factors that must be both considered and met in order for it to be correctly applied, in a number of recent decisions (available at www.ocei.ie ). Considering the limited information in scope here, and the lack of engagement from the DAA on this point, I do not think it is necessary to set out a detailed analysis of the article 9(1)(c) provision on this occasion. I acknowledge that DAA is a state-owned commercial entity – and that naturally some of the environmental information it holds may well have a commercial element to it. However, it is incumbent on DAA to establish this in the first instance having regard to the particular information at issue. Following this, other relevant factors need to be given consideration including whether the information is confidential, whether there is a legal basis for such confidentiality, whether there is a legitimate economic interest at stake, and finally would disclosure adversely affect that interest. The public interest balancing test must then be applied in a scenario where article 9(1)(c) is found to be engaged. In the circumstances where the DAA has failed to engage in any meaningful way on the article 9(1)(c) provision and having examined the actual information at issue for release, I cannot see how any confidentiality of this information is protecting the legitimate economic interests of DAA or any other party. I find that article 9(1)(c) does not apply to this information.
Conclusion
43. I find, therefore, that DAA has not demonstrated the applicability of any of the above exceptions under articles 8 and 9 of the AIE Regulations. In the circumstances, the question of considering the public interest test at article 10 of the AIE Regulations does not arise.
44. Having carried out a review under article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, on behalf of the Commissioner for Environmental Information, I hereby vary DAA’s decision.
45. I find that article 8(a)(i) of the AIE Regulations does not apply in respect of all redacted information in (10) records, that is Records 1, 15, 16, 17, 21, 26, 28, 33, 35, and 38 and to relevant redacted information in one (1) record, that is Record 20. I direct release of that information.
46. I find that articles 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(c) of the AIE Regulations do not apply to certain redacted information, within scope of the appellant’s request, in respect of eight (8) records, that is Records 5, 6, 7, 13, 14, 20, 22, and 32. I direct release of that information.
47. 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.
Gemma Farrell
On behalf of the Commissioner for Environmental Information
Appendix A
In summary: DAA’s internal review decision dated 10 January 2025 identified twenty-nine (29) records and withheld all records in full. DAA’s revised decision dated 11 April 2025 identified thirty (30) records and granted five (5) records in full, part-granted twenty-two (22) records and withheld three (3) records in full.
| Record No. & (DAA) Title | DAA Internal Review Decision | DAA Revised Decision (post Appeal) | |||
| Decision | Reason | Decision | Reason | ||
| 1 | |||||
| 11092024 1.0 NPF Submission.pdf | Refuse | Under grounds 9(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations | Partial release | Redacted names and emails of daa and department employees | |
| 2 | |||||
| 11092024 1.1 NPF Review_Final for Issue.pdf | Refuse | Under grounds 9(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations | Release | ||
| 3 | - | Record not referenced | - | Record not referenced | |
| 4 | - | Record not referenced | - | Record not referenced | |
| 5 | |||||
| July 2024 - DoT Update July 2017.pdf | Refuse | Under grounds 9(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations | Refuse | Information presented before the courts and may be appealed. Commercially sensitive information, not relevant to the request | |
| 6 | |||||
| October 2024 DoT Presentation -Print.pdf | Refuse | Under grounds 9(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations | Refuse | Information presented before the courts and may be appealed. Commercially sensitive information, not relevant to the request | |
| 7 | |||||
| September 2024 DoT Update.pdf | Refuse | Under grounds 9(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations | Refuse | Information presented before the courts and may be appealed. Commercially sensitive information, not relevant to the request | |
| 8 | |||||
| - | Record not referenced | - | Record not referenced | ||
| 9 | |||||
| Feb 2024 q meeting Worry List.pdf | Refuse | Under grounds 9(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations | Partial Release | Redacted commercially sensitive information, not relevant to the request | |
| 10 | |||||
| July 2024 q meeting Worry List.pdf | Refuse | Under grounds 9(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations | Partial Release | Redacted commercially sensitive information, not relevant to the request | |
| 11 | |||||
| July 2024 q Year Forecasts 2024 2028.pdf | - | Record not referenced | Partial Release | Redacted commercially sensitive information, not relevant to the request | |
| 12 | |||||
| May 2024 q meeting WORRY LIST.pdf | Refuse | Under grounds 9(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations | Partial Release | Redacted commercially sensitive information, not relevant to the request | |
| 13 | |||||
| Chairs Annual Report to Minister 2023 | Refuse | Under grounds 9(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations | Partial Release | Redacted information linked to proceedings | |
| 14 | |||||
| 20240726 KJ to Min Lawless.pdf | Refuse | Under grounds 9(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations | Partial Release | Paragraph 4 redacted (not relevant to request – concerns NPF references to Dublin Port) | |
| 15 | |||||
| Invitation to An Taoiseach 06.08.24.pdf | Refuse | Under grounds 9(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations | Partial release | Redacted names and emails of department employees | |
| 16 | |||||
| Ltr An Taoiseach 27.08.24.pdf | Refuse | Under grounds 9(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations | Partial release | Redacted email of department employee and name in body of letter | |
| 17 | |||||
| Ltr from daa Chair to Minister Ryan 26.06.24.pdf | Refuse | Under grounds 9(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations | Partial release | Redacted department employee email, paragraph 2 and 3 (not relevant to request) | |
| 18 | |||||
| Ltr Minister Chambers re UEFA 02.02.24.pdf | Refuse | Under grounds 9(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations | Release | ||
| 19 | |||||
| Minister Chambers 30.05.24.pdf | Refuse | Under grounds 9(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations | Release | ||
| 20 | |||||
| Commencement Matter CM_87_24 submitted by Lynn Boylan.msg | Refuse | Under grounds 9(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations | Partial release | Redacted names and emails of daa and department employees | |
| 21 | |||||
| - | Record not referenced | - | Record not referenced | ||
| 22 | |||||
| 20240529 Statement on behalf of Min Transport- FINAL.pdf | Refuse | Under grounds 9(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations | Partial Release | Redacted commercially sensitive information, not relevant to the request | |
| 23 | |||||
| - | Record not referenced | - | Record not referenced | ||
| 23.1 | |||||
| - | Record not referenced | - | Record not referenced | ||
| 24 | |||||
| - | Record not referenced | - | Record not referenced | ||
| 25 | |||||
| FW_ AGM of daa plc - 29 May 2024 (DPER Shareholders).msg | Refuse | Under grounds 9(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations | Partial Release | Redacted commercially sensitive information, not relevant to the request | |
| 26 | |||||
| FW_ Letter from daa Chair Basil Geoghegan.msg | Refuse | Under grounds 9(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations | Partial release | Redacted names and emails of daa and department employees | |
| 27 | |||||
| Ltr from daa Chair to Minister Ryan 26.06.24.pdf | Refuse | Under grounds 9(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations | Partial release | A duplicate of Record 17. As above. | |
| 28 | |||||
| FW_ Letter from Minister Jack Chambers DOT re CAP.msg | Refuse | Under grounds 9(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations | Partial release | Redacted email of daa and department employees | |
| 29 | |||||
| 20240119 Mr. Kenny Jacobs DAA from Minister Chambers.pdf | Refuse | Under grounds 9(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations | Release | ||
| 30 | |||||
| - | Record not referenced | - | Record not referenced | ||
| 31 | |||||
| Document Scannable le 11 oct. 2024 à 14_31_07[3][8].pdf | Refuse | Under grounds 9(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations | Partial release | Redacted personal information and contact details | |
| 32 | |||||
| ltr DOT 260324.pdf | Refuse | Under grounds 9(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations | Partial release | Redacted information linked to proceedings and/or not relevant to the AIE request | |
| 33 | |||||
| PQ_ 4820_24_01_02_2024_Paul Murphy.msg | Refuse | Under grounds 9(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations | Partial release | Redacted email of daa and department employees | |
| 34 | |||||
| - | Record not referenced | - | Record not referenced | ||
| 35 | |||||
| RE_ daa AGM Ministers Statement.msg | Refuse | Under grounds 9(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations | Partial release | Redacted email of daa and department employees | |
| 36 | |||||
| 4.0 Chair's Statement at AGM - 29 May 2024v2.0.pdf | Refuse | Under grounds 9(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations | Partial Release | Redacted commercially sensitive information, not relevant to the request | |
| 37 | |||||
| 5.01 43657 daa Irish AR23 Web.pdf | Refuse | Under grounds 9(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations | Release | ||
| 38 | |||||
| RE_ DAA statement to Claire byrne.msg | Refuse | Under grounds 9(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations | Partial release | Redacted email of daa and department employees |
Records outside scope
Twenty-one (21) records have been removed from the scope of this review, on the following bases.
(a) Five (5) records were granted in full to the appellant on 11 April 2025:
Records 2, 18, 19, 29 and 37
(b) Seven (7) records are outside of the specific date range covered by the AIE request (i.e. 1 January 2024 – 14 October 2024):
Record 3: This record was not identified to the appellant as DAA considered it to be outside of scope of the AIE request. The record is dated 27 June 2023. On this basis, I am satisfied that DAA’s interpretation of Record 3 as outside of scope is correct.
Records 23 and 23.1: These records were not identified to the appellant as DAA considered same to be outside of scope of the AIE request. Record 23 is an email dated 4 November 2024. Record 23.1 is the attachment included in this email. On this basis, I am satisfied that DAA’s interpretation of Records 23 and 23.1 as outside of scope is correct.
Record 24: This record was not identified to the appellant as DAA considered it to be outside of scope of the AIE request. The record is dated 4 November 2024. On this basis, I am satisfied that DAA’s interpretation of Record 24 as outside of scope is correct.
Record 30: This record was not identified to the appellant as DAA considered it to be outside of the scope of the AIE request. The record is an email dated 22 October 2024. On this basis, I am satisfied that DAA’s interpretation of Record 30 as outside of scope is correct.
Record 31: This record was originally refused in full by DAA under article 9(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations. On 11 April 2025, DAA released a redacted version of the record to the appellant. The record is dated 8 October 2024; however, it was communicated to the Department of Transport on 22 October 2024 (attachment to Record 30). On this basis, as with Record 30, I am satisfied that Record 31 is outside of scope of the AIE request.
Record 34: This record was not identified to the appellant as DAA considered it to be outside of scope of the AIE request. Record 34 is a chain of email communication dated 21-22 October 2024. On this basis, I am satisfied that DAA’s interpretation of Record 34 as outside of scope is correct.
(c) Three (3) records do not contain information related to the specific subject of the AIE request (i.e. correspondence between DAA and the Department of Transport and/or the Department of the Taoiseach with regard to the Dublin Airport passenger cap):
Record 4: This record was not identified to the appellant as DAA considered it to be outside of scope of the AIE request. The record is an email from DAA to the Department of Transport dated 31 January 2024 which does not contain any reference to the Dublin Airport passenger cap. On this basis, and having reviewed the record, I am satisfied that DAA’s interpretation of Record 4 as outside of scope is correct.
Record 8: This record was not identified to the appellant as DAA considered it to be outside of scope of the AIE request. The record is a powerpoint presentation dated 1 February 2024, which does not contain any reference to the Dublin Airport passenger cap. On this basis, and having reviewed the record, I am satisfied that DAA’s interpretation of Record 8 as outside of scope is correct.
Record 25: This record was originally refused in full by DAA under article 9(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations. On 11 April 2025, DAA released a redacted version of the record to the appellant. However, having reviewed the record, I am satisfied that Record 25 is not correspondence between DAA and the Department of Transport and/or the Department of the Taoiseach. As such, Record 25 is outside of scope of the AIE request.
(d) Five (5) records, were part-granted to the appellant on 11 April 2025, and do not contain any further information related to the specific subject of the AIE request (i.e. correspondence between DAA and the Department of Transport and/or the Department of the Taoiseach with regard to the Dublin Airport passenger cap):
Record 9: This record was originally refused in full by DAA under article 9(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations. On 3 April 2025, DAA released a redacted version of the record to the appellant. Having reviewed the complete record concerned, I am satisfied that the redacted information does not contain any reference to the Dublin Airport passenger cap. On this basis, I am satisfied that there is no further information therein falling to be released, within scope of the AIE request.
Record 10: This record was originally refused in full by DAA under article 9(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations. On 3 April 2025, DAA released a redacted version of the record to the appellant. Having reviewed the complete record concerned, I am satisfied that the redacted information does not contain any reference to the Dublin Airport passenger cap. On this basis, I am satisfied that there is no further information therein falling to be released, within scope of the AIE request.
Record 11: This record was not identified to the appellant as DAA considered it to be outside of the scope of the AIE request. In the schedule of records provided to this Office on 14 February 2025, Record 11 was listed as “Out of scope - Not about the passenger cap”. However, on examining this record, the Investigator noted a reference to the Dublin Airport passenger (on page 6 of 54) and invited further comment from DAA as to why Record 11 should be considered out of scope, in its entirety. On 11 April 2025, DAA released an extensively redacted version of the record to the appellant. Having reviewed the complete record, I am satisfied that the redacted information, does not contain any reference to the Dublin Airport passenger cap. On this basis, I am satisfied that there is no further information therein falling to be released, within scope of the AIE request.
Record 12: This record was originally refused in full by DAA under article 9(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations. On 3 April 2025, DAA released a redacted version of the record to the appellant. Having reviewed the complete record concerned, I am satisfied that the redacted information does not contain any specific reference to the Dublin Airport passenger cap. On this basis, I am satisfied that there is no further information therein falling to be released, within scope of the AIE request.
Record 36: This record was originally refused in full by DAA under article 9(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations. On 11 April 2025, DAA released a redacted version of the record to the appellant. Having reviewed the complete record, I am satisfied that the redacted information, does not contain any reference to the Dublin Airport passenger cap. On this basis, I am satisfied that there is no further information therein falling to be released, within scope of the AIE request.
(e) One (1) record is duplicated:
Record 27: This record was originally refused in full by DAA under article 9(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations. On 11 April 2025, DAA released a redacted version of the record to the appellant; the accompanying schedule of records provided the following explanation for these redactions: "*A duplicate of Record 17. As above.” Having reviewed both complete records, I am satisfied that Record 27 is a duplicate of Record 17. The redacted information in this record is examined under Record 17.
Records within scope
Eighteen (18) are considered within scope of this review:
(a) In respect of ten (10) records, the withheld information will be examined under article 8(a)(i) of the AIE Regulations. These are:
Record 1: On 11 April 2025, DAA released a redacted version of this record to the appellant; the accompanying schedule of records provided the following explanation for these redactions: "Redacted names and emails of daa and department employees”. Having reviewed the complete record, I am satisfied that the redacted information can be described as names/email addresses of Department of Transport and DAA staff, and a telephone number of a DAA staff member.
Record 15: On 11 April 2025, DAA released a redacted version of this record to the appellant; the accompanying schedule of records provided the following explanation for these redactions: "Redacted names and emails of department employees”. Having reviewed the complete record, I am satisfied that the redacted information can be described as an email address of one Department of the Taoiseach official.
Record 16: On 11 April 2025, DAA released a redacted version of this record to the appellant; the accompanying schedule of records provided the following explanation for these redactions: "Redacted email of department employee and name in body of letter”. Having reviewed the complete record, I am satisfied that the redacted information can be described as an email address of one Department of the Taoiseach official and first name in body of letter.
Record 17: On 11 April 2025, DAA released a redacted version of this record to the appellant; the accompanying schedule of records provided the following explanation for these redactions: "Redacted department employee email, paragraph 2 and 3 (not relevant to request)”. Having reviewed the complete record, firstly, I am satisfied that the redacted paragraphs do not contain any reference to the Dublin Airport passenger cap and on this basis, I am satisfied that this information does not fall within scope of the AIE request. I am satisfied that the remaining redaction can be described as an email address of one Department of Transport official.
Record 21: This record was not identified to the appellant as DAA considered it to be outside of scope of the AIE request. As outlined in the Preliminary Matters section of this Decision, I am satisfied that Record 21 is within scope of the AIE request. Having reviewed the complete record, I am satisfied that the record does contain names/email addresses of Department of Transport and DAA staff, and a telephone number of one Department staff member. (For clarification, the attachment included in this email is examined separately under Record 22.)
Record 26: On 11 April 2025, DAA released a redacted version of this record to the appellant; the accompanying schedule of records provided the following explanation for these redactions: "Redacted names and emails of daa and department employees”. Having reviewed the complete record, I am satisfied that the redacted information can be described as names/email addresses of Department of Transport and DAA staff, and telephone numbers of one DAA staff member. (For clarification, the attachment included in this email is examined separately under Record 17.)
Record 28: On 3 April 2025, DAA released a redacted version of the record to the appellant. In the schedule of records provided to the appellant on 11 April 2025, the explanation for these redactions was: "Redacted email of daa and department employees”. Having reviewed the complete record, I am satisfied that the redacted information can be described as names/email addresses of Department of Transport and DAA staff, and telephone numbers of one DAA staff member.
Record 33: On 11 April 2025, DAA released a redacted version of this record to the appellant; the accompanying schedule of records provided the following explanation for these redactions: "Redacted email of daa and department employees”. Having reviewed the complete record, I am satisfied that the redacted information can be described as names/email addresses of Department of Transport and DAA staff.
Record 35: On 11 April 2025, DAA released a redacted version of this record to the appellant; the accompanying schedule of records provided the following explanation for these redactions: "Redacted email of daa and department employees”. Having reviewed the complete record, I am satisfied that the redacted information can be described as names/email addresses of Department of Transport and DAA staff. Telephone numbers of one DAA staff member and one Department staff member. (For clarification, the attachments included in this email record are examined separately under Records 36 and 37.)
Record 38: On 11 April 2025, DAA released a redacted version of this record to the appellant; the accompanying schedule of records provided the following explanation for these redactions: "Redacted email of daa and department employees”. Having reviewed the complete record, I am satisfied that the redacted information can be described as names/email addresses of Department of Transport and DAA staff and one IAA staff member.
(b) In respect of eight (8) records, the withheld information, insofar as it is within scope of the AIE request, will be examined under articles 9(1)(b) and/or 9(1)(c) of the AIE Regulations. (Certain information in Record 20 will also be examined under article 8(a)(i) of the AIE Regulations.) These are:
Record 5: This record was originally refused in full by DAA under article 9(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations. On 11 April 2025, DAA upheld its position to refuse Record 5, and the accompanying schedule of records provided the following reason for this decision: “Information presented before the courts and may be appealed. Commercially sensitive information, not relevant to the request”. Having reviewed the complete Record 5, I am satisfied that only page 13 (of 21) titled ‘IAA decision on winter parameters and engagement on summer 25 parameters’, objectively falls within scope of the AIE request. The remaining content is considered outside of scope of the AIE request.
Record 6: This record was originally refused in full by DAA under article 9(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations. On 11 April 2025, DAA upheld its position to refuse Record 6, and the accompanying schedule of records provided the following reason for this decision: “Information presented before the courts and may be appealed. Commercially sensitive information, not relevant to the request”. Having reviewed the complete Record 6, I am satisfied that only page 11 (of 19) titled ‘Slot Coordination and the 32mppa Cap’, objectively falls within scope of the AIE request. The remaining content is considered outside of scope of the AIE request.
Record 7: This record was originally refused in full by DAA under article 9(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations. On 11 April 2025, DAA upheld its position to refuse Record 7, and the accompanying schedule of records provided the following reason for this decision: “Information presented before the courts and may be appealed. Commercially sensitive information, not relevant to the request”. Having reviewed the complete record, I am satisfied that only pages 14 and 15 (of 23) titled ‘Slot Coordination & 32 Million Planning Cap’ and ‘IAA Draft Decision on Summer 2025 Capacity’, objectively fall within scope of the AIE request. The remaining content is considered outside of scope of the AIE request.
Record 13: Record 13 was originally refused in full by DAA under article 9(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations. On 3 April 2025, DAA released a redacted version of the record to the appellant. The schedule of records provided to the appellant on 11 April 2025 provided the provided the following reason for these redactions: "Redacted information linked to proceedings". Having reviewed the complete record, I am satisfied that the redacted information falls within scope of the AIE request.
Record 14: Record 14 was originally refused in full by DAA under article 9(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations. On 11 April 2025, DAA released a redacted version of the record to the appellant; the accompanying schedule of records provided the following reason for these redactions: “Paragraph 4 redacted (not relevant to request – concerns NPF references to Dublin Port)”. Having reviewed the complete record, I am satisfied that the redacted information falls within scope of the AIE request.
Record 20: Record 20 was originally refused in full by DAA under article 9(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations. On 11 April 2025, DAA released a redacted version of the record to the appellant; the accompanying schedule of records provided the following reason for these redactions: “Redacted names and emails of daa and department employees”. Having reviewed the complete record, firstly, I am satisfied that a redacted paragraph (not refenced by DAA in its decision-making), being paragraph 1 in email communication dated 12 February 2024 @ 15:00 falls within scope of the AIE request. Secondly, the remaining redacted information can be described as names/email addresses of Department of Transport and DAA staff, and telephone numbers of one DAA staff member and one Department staff member.
Record 22: Record 22 was originally refused in full by DAA under article 9(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations. On 11 April 2025, DAA released a redacted version of the record to the appellant; the accompanying schedule of records provided the following reason for these redactions: “Redacted commercially sensitive information, not relevant to the request”. Having reviewed the complete record, I am satisfied that the following redacted paragraphs contain information which falls within scope of the AIE request – paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 under subheading ‘Development of Infrastructure at Dublin and Cork Airports’. The remaining redacted information is considered outside of scope of the AIE request.
Record 32: Record 32 was originally refused in full by DAA under article 9(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations. On 11 April 2025, DAA released a redacted version of the record to the appellant; the accompanying schedule of records provided following reason for these redactions: “Redacted information linked to proceedings and/or not relevant to the AIE request”. Having reviewed the complete record, I am satisfied that paragraph 5 (in full) falls within scope of the AIE request. The remaining redacted information is considered outside of scope of the AIE request.