Decisions List

Under article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, the Commissioner for Environmental Information reviewed the Council's decision. He found that the Council was justified in refusing to provide information on prior written notifications of waste shipments, as well as documents supporting such notifications and an internal database of notifications, on the basis that the exception under article 9(1)(c) applied to this information. He found that the Council was justified in refusing to provide information supporting the application process in connection with the register of brokers and dealers, on the basis that the exception under article 9(1)(c) applied to this information. He found that the Council was not justified in refusing to provide access to an inspection file on the basis of article 8(a)(iv). He found that the Council was justified in part in refusing access to some of the information contained in the Council’s inspections file, as the exception under article 9(1)(c) applied. The Commissioner varied the decision of the Council, and required the Council to make available to the appellant environmental information set out in Schedule 1 to his decision. He also required the Council to make available to the appellant environmental information set out in Schedule 3, subject to the separation of information to which article 9(1)(c) applies. He required the Council to make available to the appellant such parts of the three public registers it maintains as are relevant to the appellant's request, together with copies of any certificates of registration of brokers and dealers relevant to the request.

The Commissioner found that refusal to provide access to some of the information contained in the correspondence was justified because it was either outside of the scope of the request or is not environmental information. However, he found that some information is environmental information within the scope of the request and refusal to provide access to this information was not justified. Accordingly, the Commissioner varied the OPW’s decision and required the OPW to make this information available to the appellant.

The Commissioner found that The Department’s refusal to provide access to information on the second and third parts of the request was justified because such information was not held by or for the Department The Department’s refusal to provide access to the withheld information on the first part of the request was not justified The Commissioner varied the Department’s decision to reflect these findings. In addition, he required the Department to provide the appellant with access to the withheld information

The Commissioner found that: · The Department’s refusal to provide access to information on the third part of the request was justified because such information was not held by or for the Department · The Department’s refusal to provide access to the withheld information was not justified The Commissioner varied the Department’s decision to reflect these findings. In addition, he required the Department to provide the appellant with access to the withheld information

In accordance with Article 12(5) and Article 11(5)(a) of the Regulations, the Commissioner reviewed the contention by Wexwind that it is not a public authority for the purposes of the AIE Regulations. Having considered the definition of "public authority" contained in article 3(1) of the AIE Regulations, and the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union, he found that Wexwind is not a public authority for the purposes of the AIE Regulations as it does not constitute government or public administration under paragraph (a) of the definition, it does not perform public administrative functions relating to the environment under paragraph (b) of the definition, nor is it under the control of a public authority for the purposes of paragraph (c) of the definition.

In accordance with article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, the Commissioner reviewed the Department's decision, and varied the decision in a number of ways. He found that the appellant's request was, in part, manifestly unreasonable with regard to volume and range under article 9(2)(a)