Summary: 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.
Date: 09-06-2016
Case Number: CEI/15/0013
Public Body: The Marine Institute
Article of the Reg.: Art.8(a)(iv) Art.9(1)(c)
Summary: 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.
Date: 09-06-2016
Case Number: CEI/15/0014
Public Body: Environmental Protection Agency
Article of the Reg.:
Summary: 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.
Date: 07-06-2016
Case Number: CEI/15/0007
Public Body: Department of Defence
Article of the Reg.: Art.3(1)
Summary: 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.
Date: 24-05-2016
Case Number: CEI/13/0015
Public Body: EirGrid plc
Article of the Reg.: Art.7(5) Art.9(1)(b) Art.9(1)(c)
Summary: Under article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, the Commissioner reviewed the decision of the Council. Following the Commissioner's raising of issues concerning the Council's search and records management practice, the Council acknowledged the existence of relevant information which had not been considered at the time of the initial decision or internal review. Accordingly, the Commissioner annulled the decision of the Council, as it was inadequately answered under article 11(5)(b) of the AIE Regulations.
Date: 15-04-2016
Case Number: CEI/14/0008
Public Body: Galway County Council
Article of the Reg.: Art.7(5) Art.11(5)
Summary: None
Date: 07-04-2016
Case Number: CEI/15/0009
Public Body: Commission for Energy Regulation
Article of the Reg.:
Summary: The Commissioner found that refusal was justified because the Courts Service holds such information on behalf of the Courts in a judicial capacity while acting (in effect) as a servant of the Judiciary. When acting in that capacity the Courts Service is not a public authority within the meaning of article 3(1) the AIE Regulations. Accordingly, the Commissioner affirmed the Courts Service's decision.
Date: 07-04-2016
Case Number: CEI/15/0008
Public Body: The Courts Service
Article of the Reg.:
Summary: The Commissioner noted that, following the intervention of his Office in the course of this review, EirGrid provided the appellant with access to all of the information which it held it in relation to part (1) of the request. In accordance with article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, the Commissioner reviewed EirGrid's decision to refuse access to the remaining information. He found that refusal was justified because some of the information is not held and the information which is held is either not environmental information or is environmental information to which the AIE Regulations do not apply by virtue of article 4(1). Accordingly, the Commissioner affirmed EirGrid's decision to refuse those parts of the request.
Date: 17-02-2016
Case Number: CEI/14/0014
Public Body: Eirgrid
Article of the Reg.:
Summary: In accordance with article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, the Commissioner reviewed EirGrid's decision and found that refusal to provide access to the information requested was not justified on the grounds of commercial or industrial confidentiality by article 9(1)(c). Accordingly, the Commissioner annulled EirGrid's decision and, citing article 12(5)(c), required Eirgrid to make the information available to the appellant.
Date: 22-01-2016
Case Number: CEI/14/0016
Public Body: Eirgrid
Article of the Reg.: Art.9(1)(c)
Summary: In accordance with Article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, the Commissioner reviewed the decision of BnM and found that it was justified in refusing the request under Articles 7(5), 8(a)(iv), and 9(1)(b) of the Regulations. He affirmed the decision of BnM accordingly.
Date: 16-12-2015
Case Number: CEI/14/0002
Public Body: Bord na Móna
Article of the Reg.: Art.7(5) Art.8(a)(iv) Art.9(1)(b)