Decisions List

The Commissioner found that the information at issue is environmental information within the meaning of the AIE Regulations. Accordingly, the Commissioner annulled the decision and remitted the request to the EPA for a fresh decision.

The Commissioner found that refusal under articles 8(a)(ii) and 9(1)(c) was not justified having regard to article 10(3) of the AIE Regulations. Accordingly, the Commissioner annulled the Institute’s decision and required it to make the withheld environmental information available to the appellant.

In accordance with Article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, the Commissioner reviewed ESBN's decision to refuse the appellant's request. The Commissioner found that the information requested was environmental information under paragraph (c) of the definition set out in article 3(1) of the AIE Regulations. The Commissioner found that ESBN was not justified in refusing the appellant's request for environmental information under article 9(2)(a) of the AIE Regulations on the ground that the request was manifestly unreasonable with regard to volume or range. The Commissioner found that refusal was not justified under article 9(1)(d) of the AIE Regulations. The Commissioner found that article 10(1) of the AIE Regulations regarding emissions into the environment did not apply to the information requested by the appellant. The Commissioner further found that article 9(1)(c) of the AIE Regulations relating to commercial and industrial confidentiality applied to the information requested. He found under article 10(3) that the public interest served by disclosure outweighed the interest served by refusal. Accordingly, he annulled the decision of ESBN to refuse the appellant's request, and required ESBN to make the requested environmental information available to the appellant.

In accordance with article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, the Commissioner reviewed EirGrid's decision to refuse access to information. The Commissioner found that the withheld information is not environmental information within the scope of the request. Accordingly, he affirmed EirGrid's decision.

The Commissioner varied the decision of the Department to refuse the appellant's request. He found that the Department was justified in refusing access to MATS information on names of passengers and time spent on board aircraft by officials, on the basis that this information does not fall within the definition of "environmental information" contained in the AIE Regulations. He found that the Department was not justified in refusing to provide access to MATS information on dates of travel, destinations of travel, flight durations, the number of passengers travelling, and the names of office holders and departments availing of the service, as this information falls within paragraph (c) of the definition of environmental information. The Commissioner also found that information on dates and destinations of travel is environmental information under paragraph (b) of the definition. The Commissioner stated that, unless his decision is appealed to the High Court, the Department should make a new decision on the appellant's request under the AIE Regulations.

The Commissioner reviewed the decision of EirGrid under article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations. He was satisfied that article 9(1)(c) applied to certain redacted information relating to the main beneficiary of the upgrade works, but he found that EirGrid was not justified in refusing access to other relevant information falling within the scope of the appellant's request, including information that had effectively been refused under article 7(5) of the Regulations. Accordingly, he affirmed the decision in part and annulled in part, directing that certain information be released and that a fresh decision-making process be undertaken in relation to the addition relevant information held by or for EirGrid.