Decision
Mr F and Coillte
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-138596-H6C8G9, OCE-135799-J6B5M5
Published on
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-138596-H6C8G9, OCE-135799-J6B5M5
Published on
Whether Coillte was justified in refusing the information requested under article 9(2)(a) of the AIE Regulations
13 May 2024
1. This decision relates to two appeals received by this Office on 22 February 2023 (appeal A) and 23 May 2023 (appeal B).
Appeal A
2. On 1 December 2022 the appellant submitted 13 separate requests to Coillte requesting “an electronic copy of all Operational Monitoring Records for works in” a number of individual Coillte forests for November 2022.
3. On 21 December Coillte issued its original decision wherein it stated that the requests in question, “effectively constitute one single AIE request”. The authority stated that it had come to this viewpoint as all of the requests were i) from the same person, ii) received on the same date, and iii) all sought identical categories of information relating to felling licence applications.
4. On 3 January 2023 the appellant submitted a request for an internal review of Coilltes decision stating that no request was made to him by Coillte to refine the request or to reduce the scope of the request prior to Coillte amalgamating his requests and subsequently refusing the same under article 9(2)(a) of the AIE Regulations.
5. In its internal review decision, issued on 27 January 2023, Coillte recognised its failure to request a refinement or reduction in scope of the appellant`s appeals and proceeded to request that the appellant, “refine, reformulate or submit a new Request”.
Appeal B
6. On dates between 3-11 April 2023 the appellant submitted 11 separate requests to Coillte seeking information relating to a number of different areas of operation within Coillte.
7. On 2 April 2023 Coillte issued its original decision wherein it stated that the authority had determined that the, “eleven separate communications effectively constitute a single AIE Request”. The authority explained that it had made this decision as the requests were i) all from the same person, and ii) were all received in a short period of time. On this basis the authority refused the request as manifestly unreasonable citing article 9(2)(a) of the AIE Regulations.
8. On 3 May 2023 the appellant requested an internal review of this decision.
9. The authority issued its internal review decision on 19 May 2023 wherein it varied the original decision. Coillte proposed to grant access to certain information, subject to the payment of a fee, and to refuse the balance of the request as being manifestly unreasonable.
10. I am directed by the Commissioner to carry out a review under article 12(5) of the Regulations.
11. In addition, I have had regard to:
a. the Guidance document provided by the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government on the implementation of the AIE Regulations (the Minister’s Guidance);
b. Directive 2003/4/EC (the AIE Directive), upon which the AIE Regulations are based;
c. the 1998 United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (the Aarhus Convention); and
d. The Aarhus Convention—An Implementation Guide (Second edition, June 2014) (‘the Aarhus Guide’).
12. What follows does not comment or make findings on each and every argument advanced but all relevant points have been considered.
13. The scope of my review in these appeals is whether Coillte was justified in refusing the information requested under article 9(2)(a) of the AIE Regulations.
14. As outlined in the recently launched annual review detailing the work of this Office during 2023, the number of appeals top this Office remains high, particularly in relation to forestry issues. As a result of the ongoing review of appeals before this Office, Coillte has identified these appeals as suitable for reconsideration and as such has requested that they be remitted to it by this Office for a new internal review process to be carried out. The appellant has indicated his agreement with this approach.
15. I am satisfied that given the time that has passed since these appeals were received by this Office, the AIE regime is best served by dealing with these cases in this manner. This Office is facing a significant backlog of cases, and therefore where it is appropriate for a public authority to review its decision in a particular appeal, this may allow for the matter to be dealt with in a more efficient manner. A full investigation in each of these appeals would result in further delays to the requestor receiving relevant information where appropriate. Accordingly, I annul the internal review decisions in these appeals. Coillte should provide the appellant with new internal review decisions in respect of the requests concerned.
16. Having carried out a review under article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, I hereby annul Coillte’s decisions to refuse access to information relating to Appeal A and Appeal B (as detailed above) under article 9(2)(a) of the AIE Regulations. Coillte should provide the appellant with new internal review decisions in respect of the requests concerned.
17. A party to the appeal or any other person affected by this decision may appeal to the High Court on a point of law from the decision. Such an appeal must be initiated not later than two months after notice of the decision was given to the person bringing the appeal.
Julie O’Leary
On behalf of the Commissioner for Environmental Information