Decision
Mr X and Environmental Protection Agency
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-158597-L5H5R3
Published on
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-158597-L5H5R3
Published on
Whether the EPA’s decision under article 7(3)(b) of the AIE Regulations on the appellant’s request for environmental information was justified.
30 October 2025
1. On 20 December 2024, the appellant sought information related to what the EPA termed as ‘environmental data’.
2. On 17 January 2025, the appellant asked that the EPA send the requested information by registered post to him, as he had limited broadband availability in his vicinity.
3. On 14 February 2025, the EPA issued its decision. It identified a total of 163 records containing environmental information, which were relevant to the appellant’s request. In accordance with article 7(3) of the AIE Regulations, the EPA granted the appellant, with access to 163 records in electronic format. It confirmed that the requested records only existed in their Office in electronic format and that the appellant had always corresponded with them electronically. Additionally, the EPA highlighted that the appellant did not incur any costs, which would apply if hard copies were printed and sent via registered post to him.
4. On 18 February 2025, the appellant reverted to the EPA with the following:
“The records are to be sent by post, and this has been made clear to you on 17th January. I ask that you now comply, and it is my right to receive the documentation as I requested. The link you sent last Friday cannot be opened therefore I am unable to view the documentation, Furthermore, its noted that the schedule of records you sent to decision maker 14th February 2025 that you failed to include the complaints report Reference COMOOO9329 dated April 21st 2021.”
5. On 5 March 2025, the appellant requested an internal review, as he remained dissatisfied with how the EPA had handled his request.
6. On 3 April 2025, the EPA issued its internal decision, wherein it affirmed its original decision.
7. The appellant appealed to my Office on 30 April 2025.
8. 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 EPA. 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’).
9. What follows does not comment or make findings on each and every argument advanced but all relevant points have been considered.
10. In accordance with article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, my role is to review the Department’s internal review decision and to affirm, annul or vary it. Where appropriate in the circumstances of an appeal, I will require the Department to make available environmental information to the appellant.
11. Pursuant to article 7(3)(b) of the AIE Regulations, the scope of this review is to investigate whether the EPA was justified in granting access to environmental information, as requested by the appellant, in a form or manner other than specified in his request.
12. Article 7(3)(a) of the AIE Regulations provides that where a request has been made to a public authority for access to environmental information in a particular form or manner, access shall be given in that form or manner unless (i) the information is already available to the public in another form or manner that is easily accessible or (ii) access in another form or manner would be reasonable. Article 7(3)(b) provides that where a public authority decides to make available environmental information other than in the form or manner specified in the request, the reason therefore shall be given by the public authority in writing.
13. Article 7(3) of the AIE Regulations can only be considered where a public authority has identified relevant information held by or for it, determined that information should properly be released (i.e. that no exemption provision in article 8 or 9 of the AIE Regulations (subject to article 10) applies), and has then decided to give access to that information other than in the form or manner requested.
14. Article 7(3)(b) provides that where a public authority decides to make available environmental information other than in the form or manner specified in the request, the reason therefore shall be given by the public authority in writing.
15. In cases involving article 7(3) of the AIE Regulations, this Office may consider whether the information requested is the kind of environmental information that one would expect to be maintained in a manner that is readily reproducible and accessible electronically.
16. The general crux of the appellant’s position is that the EPA’s decision under article 7(3)(b) of the AIE Regulations was not justified.
17. In its submission to this Office, the EPA highlighted that during the AIE process, it asked the appellant twice to confine his request, as it appeared to involve many records, which he already held i.e. records he sent to them or records he had received via email from them previously. However, the appellant was not agreeable to exclude any correspondence. The EPA submitted that the main reason that it provided electronic copies of 163 records to the appellant was to try and eliminate fees, which would be incurred for associated administrative costs, including printing and registered posts. However, the EPA agreed that it is amenable to provide the appellant with hard copies of the 163 electronic records, on condition that he agrees to pay a fee for the hard copies, in advance.
18. As part of a focused submission, this Office sent an email to the appellant on 1 August 2025 seeking submissions in relation to this appeal. As no reply was forthcoming, this Office sent a reminder email to the appellant on 18 August 2025 but no response was received.
19. Based on the evidence before me, I accept the EPA’s explanation that the requested 163 records only existed in their Office in electronic format. I note that the appellant corresponded regularly with the EPA electronically and additionally, he submitted his appeal to this Office via email. In this context, and given that the appellant has not engaged with this Office in relation to this appeal, I am satisfied that the decision of the EPA under article 7(3)(b) of the AIE Regulations was reasonable in the circumstances, and therefore justified under the AIE Regulations
20. I would also however note that the EPA have indicated a willingness to provide the records to the appellant in hard copy, subject to a fee. Should the appellant wish to now avail of this offer, he should contact the EPA directly and it may be the case that this can be dealt with informally or via a new request. I will note that I am not making any direction in relation to this offer, given my findings above.
21. Having carried out a review under article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, I affirm the EPA’s decision.
22. 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