Decisions List

In accordance with Article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, the Commissioner reviewed the decision of the EPA. He affirmed its decision and found that it was justified in refusing access to the information sought on the grounds that the request did not comply with Article 6(1)(d) of the Regulations i.e. the requirement that a request shall state, in terms that are as specific as possible, the environmental information that is the subject of the request.

The Commissioner found that the requested information is environmental information within the meaning of the Regulations and found that refusal to provide access was not justified The Commissioner annulled Coillte's decision and directed Coillte to provide access to the information requested

In accordance with Article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, the Commissioner reviewed the decision of the EPA. He affirmed its decision and found that it was justified in refusing access to the information sought on the grounds of Article 6(1)(d) of the Regulations i.e. the requirement that a request shall state, in terms that are as specific as possible, the environmental information that is the subject of the request.

The Commissioner found that the Council's decision was justified under Article 8 of the Regulations. While the Council relied on Article 8(a)(i) to justify refusal, the Commissioner found that refusal to grant access was also justified under Article 8(a)(ii). Accordingly the Commissioner affirmed the Council's decision, while partly varying the grounds of justification.

In accordance with Article 12(5), the Commissioner reviewed the decision of the Council. The Commissioner affirmed the decision of the Council that the request was not valid; however he varied the basis for the decision. The Commissioner agreed with the Council’s finding that the request was invalid as it did not disclose the name of a natural or legal person. The Commissioner’s decision differed in finding that social media correspondence was a valid electronic means by which a request could be made under Article 6(1)(a) of the Regulations, and in finding that a social media website could constitute a valid address for the purpose of Article 6(1)(c) of the Regulations. The Commissioner affirmed the practice of recognising associations, organisations, and groups where details of representative members are provided, but found that no representative had been nominated in this case.

In accordance with Article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, the Commissioner reviewed the decision of the Department in this case. He varied the decision of the Department and found that it was justified in refusing the request on the ground that the information sought is not "environmental information held for a public authority" within the meaning of the Regulations, except in so far as records of inspections carried out by Department officials are held by the Department. He found that only parts of the inspection reports fell to be considered in this appeal and that only certain sections of those reports, and associated attachments, are within the scope of the request. He further found that the information in these sections is environmental information and that it relates to emissions so that Article 10(1) applies. Therefore, he directed the release of certain specified information. He further found that Article 7(5) of the Regulations applied to any other information which the appellant contends is within the scope of the request.