Decision
Mr A and Coillte
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-157092-C6K6F2
Published on
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-157092-C6K6F2
Published on
Whether Coillte was justified in refusing access to the requested information under article 7(5) of the AIE regulations on the grounds that no information relevant to the request is held by Coillte.
30 June 2025
1. On 2 December 2024, the appellant contacted Coillte with the following AIE request:
“BAU 3 hold routine update meetings. I am informed that no formal Minutes are recorded. This does not mean that individuals who attend the meetings do not make any notes during the meetings. It would be very surprising and odd if they did not. They would do so in order to follow up on issues raised during the apparently un-minuted meetings. I am seeking information of the follow-up from those un-minuted meetings during the period identified”.
2. Coillte issued its original decision on 2 January 2025, outlining that “following an exercise whereby [Coillte] contacted the relevant parties for BAU3, [Coillte] have decided to refuse you access to the environmental information sought on the basis that the records sought do not exist, and therefore are not “held” by Coillte within the meaning of Article 7(5)”.
3. The appellant requested an internal review on 17 February 2025.
4. Coillte issued its internal review decision on 24 February 2025. Coillte set out its view that reasonable search steps were taken to locate the requested information and establish whether the information the appellant requested exists. Coillte outlined that the BAU Team Lead was identified as the subject matter expert for this request, and noted that “following discussions with the BAU 3 Team Lead it was confirmed that the information requested does not exist”.
5. Coillte also noted that the systems which would be used to generate relevant information on the appellant’s request would include Sharepoint Online and Microsoft Outlook. However Coillte confirmed that “a key word search was not carried out of these systems, to ascertain if information relating to the Request exists, as it was confirmed that no minutes or other information was generated at this meeting”. On that basis, Coillte’s internal review affirmed the original decision.
6. The appellant submitted an appeal to this Office on 27 February 2025.
7. I am directed by the Commissioner for Environmental Information to carry out a review under article 12(5) of the Regulations. In so doing, I have had regard to the submissions made by the appellant and 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’).
8. What follows does not comment or make findings on each and every argument advanced but all relevant points have been considered.
9. In accordance with article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, the role of this Office is to review the public authority’s internal review decision and to affirm, annul or vary it.
10. The scope of this review is to determine whether Coillte was justified in refusing access to the requested information under article 7(5) of the AIE regulations on the grounds that no information relevant to the request is held by Coillte.
11. Both Coillte and the appellant provided submissions in this case which have been considered.
12. The appellant contended that Coillte’s decisions only considered ‘written minutes’ and submitted that “information on routine updates is broader in scope than simply written minutes and would encompass matters arising from matters raised during the unminuted meetings”. The appellant further submitted that this would also include informal notes made by attendees. In addition, the appellant set out his view that “it would be most unusual if some form of records were not made by any staff in relation to these meetings”.
13. Coillte did not make an initial submission to this Office on this case, however once assigned to an Investigator, Coillte were issued with a request for submissions with specific queries to assess whether adequate steps have been taken to identify and locate relevant environmental information in this case.
14. The Investigator set out detailed search questions which included asking Coillte to provide specific details of any email searches, document searches, and also a search for any informal handwritten notes which may exist relevant to the appellant’s request. In addition, Coillte were asked to confirm how many staff attended the BAU routine meetings for November 2024 and to also confirm that searches were carried out by staff present at these meetings for any relevant information which may exist for the time specified.
15. Coillte submitted that in searching for any information relating to the appellant’s request, the BAU 3 Team Lead consulted with the BAU Administrator regarding the Request. Coillte set out that the BAU Administrator is responsible for taking notes on behalf of the BAU Team during routine meetings. Coillte noted that following this consultation, the BAU Administrator confirmed to the BAU Team Lead that no records were generated during November 2024 in relation to BAU meetings.
16. Additionally, Coillte submitted that the BAU 3 Team Lead and the BAU Administrator carried out a search of the systems Collite uses to generate and store information related to BAU meetings, specifically Microsoft Calendar, SharePoint Online and Microsoft Outlook. Coillte submitted that despite searching, no information / records pertaining to BAU meetings held in November 2024 were located.
17. The Investigator was of the view that Coillte did not adequately respond to the specific questions this Office put to it on 22 May 2025 asking for the details of the searches it undertook to arrive at its position that it does not hold the requested information. The Investigator subsequently contacted Coillte with additional queries in an attempt to identify that adequate steps had been taken to identify and locate relevant environmental information. Coillte’s response to these additional queries included the following:
i. Coillte outlined that five members of staff (including the BAU Team Lead and BAU Administrator) attended the BAU routine meetings for November 2024.
ii. Coillte noted that all staff present at these meetings were asked to search for any relevant information which may exist for the time specified (November 2024).
iii. Coillte submitted that all staff present at these meetings were consulted and are of the view no information exists.
18. The appellant was provided a summary of Coillte’s above responses and continued to contend that the searches carried out by Coillte were not adequate. He highlighted a comment in Coillte’s submissions wherein Coillte had set out that “the BAU Administrator is responsible for taking notes on behalf of the BAU Team during routine meetings”. At original decision stage, the decision maker had stated that “the basis on which the information does not exist is because, in relation to BAU 3, routine meetings are not held by BAU 3 staff that would result in the generation of records”. The appellant submitted his view that if the administrator takes notes then records are generated.
19. The appellant also submitted that neither decision letter issued to him indicated that the BAU 3 Team Leader consulted with the BAU administrator. He noted that there was no reference to the BAU administrator in either decision from Coillte and that this individual was only introduced after the case had gone to appeal.
20. The appellant also questioned what precise searches were undertaken by Coillte staff. In addition, he submitted that the dates of the meetings are important. He noted that “if the meeting is held towards the end of the month the likelihood of follow up information existing is reduced. If the meeting is held early in the month there is an increased likelihood of follow up information existing”. Coillte did not give an indication of dates for any meetings held during the timeframe covered by this request (November 2024).
21. Article 7(1) of the AIE Regulations requires public authorities to make available environmental information that is held by or for them on request. Article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations is the relevant provision to consider where the question arises as to whether the requested environmental information is held by or for the public authority concerned. This Office’s approach to dealing with cases where a public authority has effectively refused a request under article 7(5) is that it must be satisfied that adequate steps have been taken to identify and locate relevant environmental information, having regard to the particular circumstances. In determining whether the steps taken are adequate in the circumstances, a standard of reasonableness must necessarily apply. It is not normally this Office’s function to search for environmental information.
22. In order for article 7(5) to apply, this Office must be satisfied that Coillte has taken adequate steps to identify and locate all relevant environmental held by it.
23. Coillte has provided a broad overview of searches carried out, rather than providing the specific detail of searches needed in order for article 7(5) to apply. Coillte’s comment that “all staff present at these meetings were consulted and are of the view no information exists” does not assist in ascertaining that appropriate searches were carried out. As outlined by the Investigator’s queries in the request for submissions, to make this finding, this Office would require more detail on the searches actually carried out, such as specific files searched and the relevant search methods used.
24. In addition, the appellant’s request was specifically for “information of the follow-up from those un-minuted meetings during the period identified”. Coillte have not provided any additional detail on the actual searches carried out by the staff consulted. Coillte instead provided a blanket response which did not address the possible existence of any follow-up information as noted in the appellant’s request.
25. While I acknowledge that some detail has been provided by Coillte of searches in this case, I am not satisfied that reasonable and appropriate searches were conducted to identify and retrieve environmental information within the scope of the appellant’s request. In order for article 7(5) to have applied, this Office would need sight of more precise details, such as actual details for each staff member on searches carried out – this could include keywords, date parameters and systems/locations searched for each staff member. Without specifying the keywords or parameters used in its searches, there is no means to assess whether Coillte’s efforts were sufficient or targeted correctly.
26. Having regard to the above, I cannot find that Coillte has taken adequate steps to identify and locate all relevant environmental information held by it. As such, I am unable to find that article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations can be relied upon by Coillte.
27. Accordingly, I annul the decision of Coillte in its entirety and direct it to consider the appellant’s request afresh and make a new internal review decision in accordance with the provisions of the AIE Regulations, and in particular the requirement to take adequate steps to identify and locate all environmental information held by it within the scope of the request.
28. 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