Home  /  Decisions  /  Decisions List
 

Decisions List

Summary of Commissioner's Decision: The Commissioner found that refusal was not justified on the ground of article 4, but was justified on the ground of article 8(a)(iv). Accordingly, he affirmed the Council’s decision and did not require it to make environmental information available to the appellant.
22 Jun 2017
In accordance with article 12(5) of the Regulations, the Commissioner reviewed BnM's decision to refuse the appellant's AIE request. He found that BnM was justified in refusing the appellant's request on the basis that no relevant information was held by or for BnM. Accordingly, the Commissioner affirmed the refusal of the appellant's request.
15 Jun 2017
The Commissioner found that the EPA was justified in refusing the request under article 9(2)(a) of the AIE Regulations because the request was manifestly unreasonable. Accordingly, he affirmed the EPA’s decision and did not require it to make environmental information available to the appellant.
01 Jun 2017
Summary of Commissioner's Decision: The Commissioner found that the Council's decision was not justified, because it did not find that the requested information was not held by another natural or legal person on its behalf. The Commissioner found that the information was not held by or for the Council, and, accordingly, he affirmed refusal of the request
22 May 2017
The Commissioner found that the Company does not hold information captured by parts 2 and 3 of the request. He found that it holds information captured by part 4 of the request and this information contains environmental information.
08 May 2017
In accordance with article 12(5) of the Regulations, the Commissioner reviewed RTÉ's decision on the appellant's request. He found that RTÉ's letter of 20 January 2016 constituted a refusal of the appellant's request, and that the appellant's subsequent internal review request was in accordance with article 11 and was not premature. Notwithstanding this, the Commissioner found that refusal of the appellant's request was justified under article 9(2)(a), as the request was manifestly unreasonable having regard to the volume and range of information sought. He considered the public interest test under article 10(3) and found that the public interest in disclosure of information did not outweigh the interests served by refusal in this case.
24 Apr 2017
Records 1 to 6 of 92
Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |  Next  Last