Decision
Mr N and Coillte
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-156625-M7S2T9
Published on
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-156625-M7S2T9
Published on
Whether Coillte was justified in refusing access to environmental information on the basis that article 9(2)(a) and article 9(2)(b) of the AIE Regulations applies
25 September 2025
1. On 19 December 2024, the appellant requested the following information from Coillte:
“For each BAU, information on any assessments relating to the environmental impacts of Storm Darragh in terms of windblown trees on the Coillte estate, to include;
a) Public roads
b) Electricity Infrastructure
c) Telecommunication infrastructure
d) Water quality - to include mobilisation of silt from disturbed root plates (including pumping), trees falling into aquatic environmental setbacks, etc. There is a significant public interest in the release of this information. Please interpret this request broadly. Please provide a schedule of records with your decision.”
2. Coillte issued its original decision on 17 January 2026:
“By email dated 8 January 2025 we acknowledged receipt of the Request, noting that a decision relating to the Request would issue within one month, i.e. by 17 January 2025.
1. By letter attached to an email dated 10 January 2025, we requested you to refine your request as it was manifestly unreasonable with regard to the volume and range of information being requested and also formulated in too general a manner.
2. On 10 January 2025, you responded to the Refinement Invitation by email stating: “I am satisfied that my request is reasonable, relates to a particular event with a short time window in terms of the information sought and is adequately framed such that you can identify information falling within the scope of my request. I asked that the request be interpreted broadly and do not consider that any clarification or refinement is required”.
Summary of Decision
I have now had the opportunity to review the Request, in light of the Refinement Invitation and your response to the Refinement Invitation. For the reasons given below, I have decided to refuse the Request on the basis that the Request on the following bases: (a) Despite an invitation provided pursuant to Article 7(8) of the AIE Regulations to refine the Request, the Request remains formulated in too general a manner and may be refused pursuant to Article 9(2)(b) of the AIE Regulations; and (b) The Request is manifestly unreasonable having regard to the range of information sought and may be refused pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) of the AIE Regulations. The Request is formulated in too general a manner i. Under the AIE Regulations, if a request is not refined after an invitation by the public authority to the requester to do so, the request can be refused.
ii. In this case, the Request was not for any specified category of environmental information and therefore the Refinement Invitation sought clarity on what environmental information was being requested. Your response as detailed above did not provide any further clarity or specificity regarding the nature of environmental information you are referring to, leaving the request formulated in too general a manner. It remains unclear to Coillte what nature of ‘assessments’ you are referring to. As set out in our Refinement Invitation, the Request as currently worded seeks access to information held relating to all acts of assessment or appraisal carried out by Coillte staff, contractors and external third parties in relation to damage caused by Storm Darragh. Further any appropriate assessments carried out by relevant staff would currently fall within the scope of the Request. Therefore, the Request is refused pursuant to Article 9(2)(b) of the AIE Regulations.
iii. In this regard, I refer to the matter of Mr H and An Bord Pleanála, in which the Commissioner affirmed the decision of An Bord Pleanála to refuse a request on the grounds that “Article 6(1)(d) [of the AIE Regulations] states that a request for environmental information shall “state in terms that are as specific as possible, the environmental information that is the subject of the request””.
iv. The issue of unfocussed requests for environmental information was also addressed in the decision of Councillor Thomas Cullen and the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government. In that matter, the Commissioner concluded that the Department’s refusal to grant the information requested 1 Case Number OCE-143025-X5B2B5 2 Case Number CEI/15/0018 was “appropriate” and “justified”, having regard to the fact that the requester “did not specify any relevant subject matter”, among other points. v. In that matter, the Department made two invitations to the appellant to make a more specific request under Article 7(9) of the AIE Regulations to which the applicant responded that he had been “quite specific”. In rejecting the appellant’s appeal, the Commissioner noted that an individual might have a particular subject matter in mind when submitting a request, but it is not the job of a public authority to “read between the lines, or to guess”. The Department had acted appropriately in seeking further information and the applicant did not engage with this invitation. Similarly, you refused to refine your Request as requested in the Refinement Request of 10 January 2025, effectively barring Coillte from providing you with specific environmental information, as envisaged by the AIE Regulations.
The Request is Manifestly Unreasonable
i. Without prejudice to the above, even if the Request was deemed to have been formulated with the requisite specificity (which I do not accept), it is my view that the Request is manifestly unreasonable having regard to the range of information sought. The Request (as formulated) seeks to access information that may exist relating to Storm Darragh for every BAU (Business Area Unit) in Coillte, which amounts to 321 forest units. As set out in the Refinement Invitation, considering the severity of damage caused by Storm Darragh throughout the country and the fact that multiple staff and contractors in each area were directly involved in any related work thereafter, the AIE Team would have to engage directly with each relevant member of staff to confirm whether they hold material that falls to be released. It is important to note that this may include details of engagement at local level with staff, contractors, stakeholders, individual landowners and neighbours, local authorities, etc. which would necessitate each record being retrieved and validated to confirm that the information is environmental and to ensure that all necessary redactions are applied as required. The Request as currently worded is not directed to any specific category of environmental information or to a particular geographical area. It is manifestly unreasonable to seek to use the AIE Regulations in this way to obtain information relating to an event, rather than specified environmental information.
ii. This interpretation is the basis for the decision of the Commissioner in the matter of Mr. Pat Swords and the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government, in which the Department’s decision to refuse the request was upheld because the request was for “unspecified environmental information relating to an unspecified public participation exercise”. The description of the request in that decision is similar to the scope of your Request.
3. The appellant requested an internal review on 17 January 2025 on the basis that it has“not been conducted in accordance with the Regulations.”
4. The internal review decision was issued on 17 February 2025.
“In affirming the Initial Decision, I rely on the reasoning therein on the decision reached in respect of the information sought in the Request. The Initial Decision that issued to you, on 17 January 2025, should be read into my decision in that regard and I do not propose to repeat that reasoning herein. I have now had the opportunity to review the Request, and I have decided to affirm the Request on the basis of the comprehensive reasoning and deliberation provided in the Initial Decision. The first decision maker also correctly refers to the case law of relevance, and I have had regard to this case law in coming to my conclusion. For the reasons outlined above, I affirm the Initial Decision.”
5. The appellant appealed to this Office on 20 February 2025. He stated:
“I wish to make an appeal under Article 12 (3) of the AIE Regulations based on Coillte's refusal of AIE request 20250010.
Coillte have refused my request stating conflicting Articles of the Regulations.
A request cannot simultaneously be refused under Article 9(2)(a) and 9(2)(b) as Coillte have sought to do.
I have stated in terms that are as specific as possible, the environmental information that is the subject of my request.
I am seeking information on the assessment of impacts of a specific event in terms of specific impacts on the environment. I consider this to be sufficiently specific.
There is no evidence that Coillte have made any attempt to address this request. They sought to have the scope of the request significantly refused and when I indicated that I did not want to reduce the scope of the request they have taken a position to refuse the request without any investigation as to what information is held that falls within the scope of the request.
Coillte have failed to apply Article 10 (3) (4) or (5) to their decision.
It is my view that Coillte are not acting in good faith in dealing with this request and their intention is to delay access to information that they know falls to be released.
I request that the Commissioner does not allow Coillte to get away with this delaying tactic.”
6. I am directed by the Commissioner to carry out a review under article 12(5) of the Regulations. In carrying out my review, I have had regard to the submissions made by the appellant and the Coillte. In addition, I have had regard to:
• 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);
• Directive 2003/4/EC (the AIE Directive), upon which the AIE Regulations are based;
• 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
• The Aarhus Convention—An Implementation Guide (Second edition, June 2014) (‘the Aarhus Guide’).
7. In accordance with article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, my role is to review the public authority’s internal review decision and to affirm, annul or vary it. Where appropriate in the circumstances of an appeal, I will require the public authority to make available environmental information to the appellant.
8. This review concerns whether Coillte was justified in refusing access to the information sought under articles 9(2)(a) and 9(2)(b) of the AIE Regulations.
9. Article 9(2)(a) of the AIE Regulations provides that a public authority may refuse to make environmental information available where the request is manifestly unreasonable having regard to the volume or range of information sought. This provision seeks to transpose article 4(1)(b) of the AIE Directive, which provides that Member States may provide for a request for environmental information to be refused if the request is manifestly unreasonable, and, in turn, is based on part of article 4(3)(b) of the Aarhus Convention.
10. Article 9(2)(b) of the AIE Regulations provides that a public authority may refuse to make environmental information available where the request remains formulated in too general a manner, taking into account article 7(8). Article 9(2)(b) seeks to transpose article 4(1)(c) of the AIE Directive, which provides that Member States may provide for a request for environmental information to be refused if the request is formulated in too general a manner, taking into account article 3(3), and, in turn, is based on part of article 4(3)(b) of the Aarhus Convention.
11. Articles 9(2)(a) and 9(2)(b) must be read alongside article 10 of the AIE Regulations, which provides for certain limitations on the ability of a public authority to refuse environmental information. Article 10(3) of the AIE Regulations requires a public authority to consider each request on an individual basis and weigh the public interest served by disclosure against the interest served by refusal and article 10(4) of the AIE Regulations provides that the grounds for refusal of a request shall be interpreted on a restrictive basis having regard to the public interest served by disclosure. Article 7(4)(c) of the Regulations requires a public authority to specify the reasons for refusal of a request.
12. The Minister’s Guidance at paragraph 12.8 states the following:
“Article 9[(2) …] clarifies that a public authority may refuse to make information available if the request is considered unreasonable due to the range of material sought, if the request is too general or if the material requested is not yet completed. Public authorities are requested to invoke these grounds for refusal sparingly, and to assist the applicant (to reformulate a request, for example) as appropriate.”
13. In the original decision provided to the appellant, later affirmed by the internal review decision, Coillte stated that the request was manifestly unreasonable in line with article 9(2)(a) of the AIE Regulations. Its reasoning broadly can be summarised by the fact it would have to contact 321 Business Units. It also points to the severity of the storm and the fact that multiple staff in each area were directly involved in related work thereafter – all of whom would have to be engaged with to ascertain whether they hold relevant material in scope of the request. Further, Coillte states the request is regarding any specific category of environmental information or to a particular geographical area – and that it is manifestly unreasonable to seek to use the AIE Regulations in this way to obtain information relating to an event.
14. When considering whether a request is manifestly unreasonable, it is necessary to examine the impact on the public authority of dealing with the request. In particular, I must examine whether responding to the request would involve the public authority in disproportionate cost or effort or would obstruct or significantly interfere with the normal course of its activities. In light of the findings of the Court of Justice of the European Union inT-2/03 Verein für Konsumenteninformation v. Commission , at paragraphs 101-115, I consider that the exception in article 9(2)(a) is only available where the administrative burden entailed by dealing with the request is particularly heavy. The burden is on the public authority to demonstrate the unreasonableness of the task entailed by the request.
15. I am not persuaded that Coillte has demonstrated the unreasonableness of the task entailed by the request in this case. Coillte has provided neither detailed nor specific reasoning for its reliance on article 9(2)(a) of the AIE Regulations. It has not explained, in a satisfactory level of detail, how it reached this conclusions or why fulfilling the request would impose an unreasonable burden on the organisation.
16. Coillte’s explanation does not include a breakdown of the time required to process the request. While I acknowledge that it has provided a broad outline of which staff members might need to be contacted, this explanation is, in my view overly general. It gives no specific details as to the number of staff who would need to be involved, nor does it describe their day-to-day responsibilities or explain how fulfilling this request would interfere with other work. Moreover it offers no insight into how Coillte’s wider operations would be affected.
17. As set out above, the burden is on the public authority to demonstrate the unreasonableness of the task entailed by the request, and this requires the public authority to provide a satisfactory level of detail regarding the time it would take to process the request. This detail should include how many staff members would be required, what steps would be involved in answering the request and how much time would be spent on each of these tasks.
18. On the basis of the above, it is my view is that the threshold for finding the request to be manifestly unreasonable has not been met in this appeal. Accordingly, Coillte has not established that article 9(2)(a) of the AIE Regulations applies to this request.
19. Article 9(2)(b) of the AIE Regulations and article 4(1)(c) of the AIE Directive respectively require that article 7(8) of the AIE Regulations and article 3(3) of the AIE Directive be taken into account. Article 7(8) of the AIE Regulations provides that where a request is made by the applicant in too general a manner, the public authority shall, as soon as possible and at the latest within one month of receipt of the request, invite the applicant to make a more specific request and offer assistance to the applicant in the preparation of such a request. Article 3(3) of the AIE Directive provides that if a request is formulated in too general a manner, the public authority shall as soon as possible, and at the latest within one month, ask the applicant to specify the request and shall assist the applicant in doing so e.g. by providing information on the use of public registers.
20. As noted above, Coillte did ask the appellant to refine his request – suggesting it should be narrowed to a specific geographical area. The appellant declined to do so on the basis that he did not believe it was not formulated in too general a manner.
21. In my view, the request was worded specifically and in such a manner so as to limit its scope to a very narrow and limited category of environmental information. The appellant’s request sought a specific category of records“the environmental impacts of Storm Darragh in terms of windblown trees on the Coillte estate” prepared within the 11-day window since the storm occurred. Storm Darragh occurred in Ireland on 5/6th December 2024. The appellant’s request to Coillte for environmental information was made on 17 December 2024 – some 11 days later – meaning that there was a relatively short temporal window to which his request pertained.
22. I am satisfied that the appellant’s request was sufficiently specific – and do not agree he was required to be more focussed in describing the environmental information sought in his request. Accordingly, I find therefore, that Coillte was also not justified in its decision to refuse the appellant’s request under article 9(2)(b) of the AIE Regulations.
23. Having found neither article 9(2)(a) nor article 9(2)(b) to apply, it is not necessary for me to consider the public interest balancing exercise provided for at article 10(3) of the AIE Regulations. As detailed above, it can be noted that Coillte’s submission to this Office referred to the public interest balancing test as required by article 10(3) and 10(4) of the AIE Regulations. However, its reference to same lacked specific detail in relation to the information at issue, and in any event it was premature as Coillte has failed to justify that the requirements of articles 9(2)(a) and/or 9(2)(b) were met in this case in the first instance.
24. In addition, article 10(5) of the AIE Regulations stipulates that nothing in article 8 or 9 shall authorise a public authority not to make available environmental information which, although held with information to which article 8 or 9 relates, may be separated from such information. Coillte does not appear to have given any consideration as to whether it holds any information which may be separated from information which article 9(2)(a) and/or 9(2)(b) relates (in the event that either exception is justified).
25. Having carried out a review under article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, I annul Coillte’s decision and direct Coillte to carry out a new internal review decision.
26. 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
Commissioner for Environmental Information