Decision
Mr. F and Coillte
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-160197-N1P3D7
Published on
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-160197-N1P3D7
Published on
Whether the information requested is environmental information within the meaning of article 3(1) of the AIE Regulations
2 October 2025
1. On 30 April 2025, the appellant requested the following information from Coillte:
“I wish to receive the telephone numbers of all Coillte staff responsible for operations in Coillte forest LM09; To Include (but not limited to );
Forest Manager
Harvesting Manager
Establishment Manager
_Please interpret this request broadly.
Please provide a schedule of records with your decision.
Could you please provide an acknowledgement of this request and contact details for the party assigned to deal with it.”
2. On 30 May 2025, Coillte issued its original decision:
“I have decided to refuse you access to the information sought on the basis that such information is not “environmental information” as defined in Article 3 of the AIE Regulations. In considering this Request, I have had regard to the definition of “environmental information” set out in Article 3(1) of the Regulations, the Guidelines document provided by the Minister of the Environment, Community and Local Government on the implementation of the Regulations (the “AIE Guidelines”); Directive 2003/4/EC, upon which the 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), the Aarhus Convention: An Implementation Guide (Second edition, June 2014), and to decisions of the Commissioner for Environmental Information. The information sought by the Request does not include or comprise information on any of sub-paragraphs (a) to (f) of the definition of environmental information. In particular, the information sought is not information on measures or activities affecting or likely to affect or measures or activities designed to protect: “(a) the state of the elements of the environment, such as air and atmosphere, water, soil, land, landscape and natural sites including wetlands, coastal and marine areas, biological diversity and its components, including genetically modified organisms and the interaction among these elements, (b) factors, such as substances, energy, noise, radiation or waste, including radioactive waste, emissions, discharges and other releases into the environment, affecting or likely to affect the elements of the environment” It is my view that such as staff contact numbers is not environmental information within the meaning of Article 3 of the AIE Regulations .”
3. The internal review was issued on 27 June 2025. It stated:
“I agree with the view expressed in the Initial Decision that information sought relating to the Coillte staff responsible for operations in Coillte forest LM09 in the Request does not satisfy the definition of “environmental information” in article 3(1) of the AIE Regulations. The wording of the Request also seeks additional phone numbers which Coillte interpret to extend to all staff working in Coillte Forest LM09 Coillte
In re-considering this issue I have had regard to the definition of “environmental information” set out in Article 3(1) of the Regulations, the Guidelines document provided by the Minister of the Environment, Community and Local Government on the implementation of the Regulations (the “AIE Guidelines”); Directive 2003/4/EC, upon which the 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), the Aarhus Convention: An Implementation Guide (Second edition, June 2014), and to decisions of the Commissioner for Environmental Information. In that regard, the information sought by the Request does not include or comprise information on any of subparagraphs (a) to (f) of the definition of environmental information. In particular, the information sought is not information on measures or activities affecting or likely to affect or measures or activities designed to protect :
“(a)the state of the elements of the environment, such as air and atmosphere, water, soil, land, landscape and natural sites including wetlands, coastal and marine areas, biological diversity and its components, including genetically modified organisms and the interaction among these elements ,
(b) factors, such as substances, energy, noise, radiation or waste, including radioactive waste, emissions, discharges and other releases into the environment, affecting or likely to affect the elements of the environment ”
Therefore, I agree with the view expressed in the Decision that the information sought is not a measure or activity affecting or likely to affect the environment. I affirm the consideration in the Decision that information specifically relating to contact numbers for staff in Coillte does not constitute a measure affecting or likely to affect the environment. Something more than a remote or theoretical possibility of an effect on the environment is required to fall within the definition in the AIE Regulations. Such information is clearly only administrative in nature and has no relevance to environmental matters. It follows that the AIE Regulations do not apply to the Request. For the sake of absolute clarity, this type of record is administrative in nature and does not contain any other information which might be environmental information
As you are aware Coillte have a dedicated email address so that management staff can be contacted. This mailbox is monitored and managed by a dedicated team so that Coillte can respond to stakeholder matters promptly and efficiently. Should you have any queries for forest management staff please contact: info@coillte.ie. For the reasons outlined above, I affirm the Initial Decision .”
4. The appellant appealed to this Office on 1 July 2025.
5. 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);
• The Aarhus Convention—An Implementation Guide (Second edition, June 2014) (‘the Aarhus Guide’);
• The judgments in Minch v Commissioner for Environmental Information [2017] IECA 223 (Minch), Redmond & Anor v Commissioner for Environmental Information & Anor [2020] IECA 83 (Redmond), Electricity Supply Board v Commissioner for Environmental Information & Lar Mc Kenna [2020] IEHC 190 (ESB) and Right to Know v Commissioner for Environmental Information & RTÉ [2021] IEHC 353 (RTÉ);
• The judgment of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales in Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy v Information Commissioner [2017] EWCA Civ 844 (Henney) which is referenced in the decisions in Redmond, ESB and RTÉ; and
• The decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union in C-321/96 Wilhelm Mecklenburg v Kreis Pinneberg - Der Landrat (Mecklenburg) and C-316/01 Eva Glawischnig v Bundesminister für soziale Sicherheit und Generationen (Glawischnig).
6. What follows does not comment or make findings on each and every argument advanced but all relevant points have been considered.
7. In accordance with article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, my role, on behalf of the Commissioner, 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. The Commissioner for Environmental Information’s powers apply only in respect of environmental information held by or for a public authority. It is clear from Coillte’s original and internal review decisions, along with its correspondence with the appellant and this Office, that it is Coillte’s position that the information sought by the appellant is not “environmental information” such that it falls within the remit of the AIE Regulations.
9. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the scope of this review concerns whether Coillte was justified in refusing access to the requested information on the basis that such records do not contain “environmental information” within the meaning of the definition in article 3(1) of the AIE Regulations.
Definition of Environmental Information
10. Article 3(1) of the AIE Regulations is the relevant provision to consider where the issue is whether information is “environmental information”. In line with article 2(1) of the AIE Directive, article 3(1) of the AIE Regulations provides that "environmental information" means:
"any information in written, visual, aural, electronic or any other material form on –
(a)the state of the elements of the environment, such as air and atmosphere, water, soil, land, landscape and natural sites including wetlands, coastal and marine areas, biological diversity and its components, including genetically modified organisms and the interaction among these elements ,
(b)factors, such as substances, energy, noise, radiation or waste, including radioactive waste, emissions, discharges and other releases into the environment, affecting or likely to affect the elements of the environment ,
(c)measures (including administrative measures), such as policies, legislation, plans, programmes, environmental agreements, and activities affecting or likely to affect the elements and factors referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) as well as measures or activities designed to protect those elements ,
(d)reports on the implementation of environmental legislation ,
(e)cost-benefit and other economic analyses and assumptions used within the framework of the measures and activities referred to in paragraph (c), and (f) the state of human health and safety, including the contamination of the food chain, where relevant, conditions of human life, cultural sites and built structures inasmuch as they are, or may be, affected by the state of the elements of the environment referred to in paragraph (a) or, through those elements, by any of the matters referred to in paragraphs (b) and (c) . "
11. The AIE Regulations transpose the AIE Directive at national level. The AIE Directive was adopted to give effect to the first pillar of the Aarhus Convention in order to increase public access to environmental information and enable an informed public to participate more effectively in environmental decision-making. It replaced Council Directive 90/313/EC, the previous AIE Directive.
12. According to national and EU case, while the concept of “environmental information ” as defined in the AIE Directive is broad (Mecklenburg at paragraph 19), there must be more than a minimal connection with the environment (Glawischnig at paragraph 25). Information does not have to be intrinsically environmental to fall within the scope of the definition (Redmond at paragraph 58; see also ESB No. 1 at paragraph 43). However, a mere connection or link to the environment is not sufficient to bring information within the definition of environmental information. Otherwise, the scope of the definition would be unlimited in a manner that would be contrary to the judgments of the Court of Appeal and the CJEU. However, the right of access under the AIE Regulations is to information “on” one or more of the six categories at (a) to (f) of the definition.
Identification of a measure or activity
13. Paragraph (c) requires the identification of a relevant measure or activity, which the information sought is “on”. Information may be “on ” more than one measure or activity (Henney at paragraph 42). In identifying the relevant measure or activity, one may consider the wider context and is not strictly limited to the precise issue with which the information is concerned (ESB at paragraph 43). The list of examples of measures and activities given at paragraph (c) is not exhaustive, but it contains illustrative examples (Redmond at paragraph 55). The CJEU stated in Mecklenburg that the term ‘measure ’ serves “merely to make it clear that the acts governed by the directive included all forms of administrative activity ” (Mecklenburg at paragraph 20, emphasis added), and a similarly expansive approach should be taken to the term ‘activity’ (RTÉ at paragraph 19).
14. The appellant contends that the information requested is environmental information. His position is that management operations meet the test of Article 3 of the Regulations as they are a measure which is likely to affect the environment. Having carefully considered the wording of the appellant’s request, I consider the relevant measure or activity in this request to be the operations carried out by Coillte in forest LM09.
15. As I have set out in previous decisions, I would caution against an excessively legalistic approach to the identification of the “correct ” measure. In my view, the Irish and European courts have not indicated that there is one clear and precise answer to the identification of a measure. Rather, the courts have indicated that the focus should be on whether the measure affects or is likely to affect the environment.
Whether the measure or activity is affecting, likely to affect or designed to protect the environment
16. A measure or activity is “likely to affect ” the elements and factors of the environment if there is a real and substantial possibility that it will affect the environment, whether directly or indirectly. Collins J, delivering judgment on behalf of the Court of Appeal in Redmond, noted that “something more than a remote or theoretical possibility is required (because that would sweep too widely and could result in the ‘general and unlimited right of access ’ that Glawischnig indicates the AIE Directive was not intended to provide) but it is not necessary to establish the probability of a relevant environmental impact (because that would, in my opinion, sweep too narrowly and risk undermining the fundamental objectives of the AIE Directive)” (paragraph 63). I consider that the carrying out of operations in forest LM09 by such Coillte staff as the Forest Manager, Harvesting Manager and Establishment Manager will self-evidently have an environmental impact – as it will inevitably affect the elements of the environment within that forest.
Whether the information sought is “on” the relevant measure or activity
17. The crux of the issue in this particular case boils down to whether, having regard to the wording of article 3 (1) of the regulations, the information sought is information “on ” the relevant measure. As “any information … on ” a measure or activity affecting or likely to affect the environment is prima facie environmental information, the information at issue does not, in itself, have to affect or be likely to affect the environment in order to constitute information “on ” such a measure (Redmond at paragraphs 57 and 59). As the High Court outlined in its decision in the ESB No. 1 case, relying on the English Court of Appeal decision in Henney, that information is “on” a measure if it is about, relates to or concerns the measure (see paragraph 41 of ESB No. 1, referring to paragraph 37 in Henney). The question as to whether information is “on ” a measure is fact and context specific. This question is to be considered by reference to the Directive and Aarhus Convention. According to Henney, the recitals to both the Directive and Convention “give an indication of how the very broad language of the text of the provisions may have to be assessed and provide a framework for determining the question of whether in a particular case information can properly be described as "on" a given measure ” (at paragraph 48).
18. Importantly, while Henney uses the terms “critical ”, “fundamental ” or “integral ”, it did so to describe the relationship between the communications and data component of the smart meter plan and the overall smart meter plan. There was a dispute in that case between the parties as to what was the correct measure. The Court did not use these terms to say that for information to be on a measure it had to be critical, fundamental or integral to that measure. As the High Court outlined in its decision in the ESB No. 1 case, relying on the English Court of Appeal decision in Henney, that information is “on ” a measure if it is about, relates to or concerns the measure (see paragraph 41 of ESB No. 1, referring to paragraph 37 in Henney).
19. The appellant in this case states that the personnel concerned are responsible for management operations in Forest LM09, therefore the information requested (the contact numbers of the staff) relates to those operations. He further states “It is reasonable to expect that forest management staff can be contacted. The telephone numbers of the members of a public authority are not personal information. Interpretation of an AIE request must be purposeful. Telephone numbers are not purely administrative information as implied by Coillte. They are a practical means by which members of the public can contact members of a public authority .”
20. I note the appellant in his submission refers to the purposive test as articulated in Henney. The Court of Appeal in Redmond noted that the Court of Appeal of England and Wales in Henney suggests that, in determining whether information is “on” the relevant measure or activity, it may be relevant to consider the purpose of the information such as why it was produced, how important it is to that purpose, how it is to be used, and whether access to it advances the purposes of the Aarhus Convention and AIE Directive (see Redmond at paragraph 99). Information that does not advance the purposes of the Aarhus Convention and AIE Directive may not be “on” the relevant measure or activity (Redmond at paragraph 99). The test set out in Henney was also explicitly endorsed by the High Court in the RTÉ case (see paragraph 52) and is also referenced in the recent ESB No. 2 judgment.
21. Having considered the matter, I am not satisfied that the phone numbers of the relevant staff members are sufficiently related to the operations carried out by Coillte in the relevant forest. Telephone numbers could change or become inoperable, and this would have no bearing on the actual work that is or needs to be carried by Coillte in the relevant forest. I also disagree with the appellant’s suggestion that it is reasonable to expect that members of the public should be able to contact the members of staff listed in his request. I do not consider that the purpose of the contact numbers of the harvest manager, forest manager and other staff is either to ensure the proper functioning of operations at forest LM09, or to allow the public to “contact members of a public authority ” – as asserted by the appellant. While I accept business/work contact numbers can sometimes be intended to be a means for the public to make contact with a public authority, I do not consider that to be the case here. I cannot see how access to the contact number of the staff involved in the management of operations in forest LM09 would either enhance public awareness of environmental matters, or facilitate more effective public participation in environmental decision-making, as envisaged under the AIE Regulations. As noted by Coillte, it has a “dedicated email address as a structured and accessible channel through which stakeholders can contact Coillte staff and exercise their rights under the AIE framework. This approach enables meaningful public engagement with environmental issues while safeguarding the operational capacity of Coillte staff .”
22. I do not consider that access to this information advances the purpose of the Aarhus Convention or the AIE Directive and I am not persuaded by the appellant’s argument that the requested information in “on ” the measure. In conclusion, I find that the information at issue in this appeal is not environmental information within the definition in article 3(1) of the AIE Regulations.
23. Having carried out a review under article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, I affirm Coillte’s decision.
24. 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