Decision
Mr Y and Cavan County Council
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-137439-K5X9M8
Published on
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-137439-K5X9M8
Published on
Whether the Council complied with its obligations under article 7(3) of the Regulations
7 February 2024
1. On 19 December 2022, the appellant contacted Cavan County Council requesting a copy of the public road network in County Cavan in GIS format (ERSI Shapefiles and Attribute Data, including road number). The appellant requested that any sections of road which had been subsidised under the Community Improvement Scheme (CIS) be identified.
2. On 18 January 2023, the Council responded to the appellant’s request as follows:
“I am attaching for your information a Road Schedule Map in PDF Format. We do not have CIS outline on our Road Schedule. However, if you wish to refine your request to seek records for the past number of years it could be provided in Excel format”.
3. The appellant requested an internal review on the same day on the basis that the information was not provided in the requested GIS format. He noted that if the Council had the CIS information in Excel form that would be acceptable provided that it was linked to the same road references used in the GIS database.
4. Cavan County Council responded to the appellant on 16 February 2023, indicating that it had not carried out an internal review but had instead “again liaised with Roads Section on this matter”. It informed the appellant that:
"The county road schedule GIS data forms part of the national centralised dataset associated with the Map Road PMS system managed by the Roads Management Office on behalf of all Local Authorities. It would be necessary for the authority to extract a subset of this data thereby creating a new record to facilitate the request. The authority has provided a copy of the digital road schedule map record which it currently holds for the information requested."
5. The appellant responded to the Council, taking issue with its approach and submitting that “it is not in the scope of the Regulations for a public authority to defer a request for an internal review as has been done here”. He outlined that he was not asking for a new record to be created, he was asking for specific information that already exists in a particular format. He submitted that if the Council’s position was that the information requested forms part of a larger database the Council should apply article 10(5) to the request and separate the relevant information out.
6. The appellant further commented that if the Council was not prepared to release the requested information that he would be making an appeal to this Office. He also requested contact details for the Roads Management Office as referred in the Council’s correspondence above.
7. No further response was received by the appellant from the Council. The appellant submitted his original appeal to this Office on 10 March 2023 on the basis of a deemed refusal by the Council.
8. On 16 March 2023, this Office wrote to the Council requesting that it provide the appellant with a letter specifying its effective position in relation to the appellant’s internal review request and outlining reasons for this position, as soon as possible, but no later than 31 March 2023.
9. Following a further two-week extension, the Council issued its effective position to the appellant on 14 April 2023. In its response, the Council outlined that in accordance with article 7(3) of the AIE Regulations, it was granting access to a copy of the public road network in County Cavan in PDF format. The Council noted that the information requested was already available on a WebMap in PDF format in the Cavan County Council main office, and from 14 April 2023 was also available for viewing and downloading by members of the public from Cavan County Council’s website.
10. Having cited article 7(3) of the Regulations, the Council went on to refuse the appellant’s request for the public road network in GIS format, on the basis of article 9(1)(c), article 9(2)(c) and article 9(2)(d) of the Regulations.
11. In relation to the appellant’s request for sections of road subsidised under the Community Improvement Scheme (CIS), also to be provided in GIS format, the Council varied the decision of the initial decision maker and released the CIS information in Excel form.
12. On 17 April 2023 the appellant indicated that he was not satisfied with the response from the Council and wished to appeal to this Office in relation to the form and manner of access. He submitted that the information was not provided to him in the format requested and that he was not satisfied that the decision was consistent with the Regulations.
13. The Council’s position regarding submissions in this case was that its effective position provided to the appellant also formed the submission in respect of this case. The Council were provided a further opportunity to give additional submissions but confirmed on 12 July 2023 that it had nothing further to add.
14. I have now completed my 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 Council. 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’).
15. The appellant contends that the Council did not provide him with information in the form or manner he requested. The Council accepts that it has provided information in PDF rather than GIS format but relies on article 7(3)(a) in support of its decision. 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.
16. Accordingly, the review in this case is concerned with whether the Council complied with its obligations under article 7(3) of the AIE Regulations.
17. I note that the appellant did state, in his request for an internal review, that the provision of the CIS information sought at part 2 of his request would be acceptable and that the Council did subsequently release CIS information to the appellant in Excel form. However, the appellant did note in his request for internal review that his acceptance of such information in Excel format was “provided that it is linked to the same road references used in the GIS database”. In circumstances where the information on the public road network sought at part 1 of the request has not been provided to the appellant in GIS format, I do not consider the Council to have complied with the condition set out in the appellant’s internal review request in relation to part 2 and I will therefore consider the application of article 7(3) of the Regulations with respect to the entirety of the information requested.
Article 7(3)(a) of the AIE Regulations
18. Article 6(1)(e) of the AIE Regulations provides that if an applicant desires access to environmental information in a particular form or manner, the request shall specify the form or manner of access desired. In this case, the appellant requested a copy of the public road network in County Cavan to be provided in GIS format (ERSI Shapefiles and Attribute Data, including road number). He also requested that any sections of road which have been subsidised under the CIS be identified, also in GIS format or, that any Excel data provided to him would be linked to the same road references used in the GIS database.
19. In order for the Council to have complied with its obligations under article 7(3)(a) of the Regulations, it must therefore be established either:
• that the information requested by the appellant was already publicly available in an easily accessible form or manner; or
• that the access provided by the Council was reasonable.
20. Article 7(3)(b) of the Regulations 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”.
Position of the Parties
21. As set out above, the Council’s effective position granted the appellant access to the public road network in County Cavan in PDF format and also provided him with the CIS information requested in Excel form. In respect of its reliance on article 7(3) in this case, the Council submitted that it was more reasonable and timely for the appellant’s request to be granted in PDF format. It also submitted that the information requested is already available on a WebMap in PDF format on two public computers in the Cavan County Council main office, and that from 14 April 2023 it is available to view on Cavan County Council’s website, under the Maps and Data Portal section, called Cavan Road Schedule. The Council further outlined that the WebMap is interactive, displaying the full road schedule which contains road numbers, road name and road class, and also contains background OSi mapping. The Council was offered an opportunity to make further submissions in the course of the appeal however it did not do so.
22. The appellant has provided submissions to this Office in support of his position that the provision of the Public Road Network in PDF format and the CIS information in Excel form is not (i) easily accessible or (ii) reasonable. He accepts that a copy of the public road network is available to the public in another form or manner and also that the Council has separately identified the sections of road which have been subsidised under the CIS. However, he also submitted that the information he requested in GIS format needs to be viewed as a whole and that it is not easily available as a whole body of information.
23. To further support his argument that the information provided to him is not easily accessible, the appellant submitted the following:
“I have not been provided with the information on the sections of road which have been subsidised under the Community Improvement Scheme in the format requested and it is not otherwise easily available in terms of the capacity to contextualise it spatially which is a significant feature of GIS”.
The appellant also submitted that he cannot easily link the sections of road which have been subsidised under the CIS to the Road Map, and noted that this is something he would be able to do if the information had been provided to him in the correct format.
24. In respect of whether it was reasonable for the Council to furnish the information requested to the appellant in the two formats provided, the appellant submitted that he requested the information in GIS format in order to incorporate it in to a GIS database that he uses which includes dozens of other layers of information. He also outlined the following additional information in relation to GIS:
“GIS permits for much greater contextualisation of information than is permitted by a PDF document or even an interactive Webviewer which only provides OSI Mapping as a background context.
GIS permits for much greater interrogation of information than is permitted by a PDF document or an interactive Webviewer. The Council Webviewer includes road numbers, road name and road class but does not include any information on the Community Improvement Scheme.
GIS allows for searches by attributes not only of the road details but with data contained in other layers of my GIS system”.
25. The appellant also referred to the preamble of the AIE Directive which states the following:
“Increased public access to environmental information and the dissemination of such information contribute to a greater awareness of environmental matters, a free exchange of views, more effective participation by the public in environmental decision-making and, eventually, to a better environment”.
26. The appellant submitted that effective participation is based on the ability to acquire environmental information and that essentially, the greater the capacity to utilise the information the greater the potential for effective participation. Based on this, he contended that providing information in a non GIS format where it has been requested in that format is not reasonable as it is diminishing the capacity to utilise the information and article 7(3)(a)(ii) should not apply.
27. The AIE Regulations allow for requests for environmental information held by or on behalf of the relevant public authority. Article 3 of the AIE Regulations defines such information as information which is “in the possession of a public authority that has been produced or received by that authority” or “information that is physically held by a natural or legal person on behalf of that authority”.
28. The AIE Regulations also make it clear that the default position is that an appellant is entitled to be provided with information in the form or manner requested. It is only possible to depart from that default position where the requirements of article 7(3)(a)(i) or 7(3)(a)(ii) are satisfied. There is nothing before me to suggest that the information requested by the appellant is publicly available as a whole body of information in an easily accessible form or manner such that article 7(3)(a)(i) of the Regulations applies. In other words, while I am satisfied that information in relation to part 1 of his request for the public road network is publicly available, information as to the sections subsidised by the CIS does not appear to have been publicly available at the time of the appellant’s request. This information was provided directly to the appellant in Excel format when the Council issued its effective position. Although that information has now been provided directly to the appellant there is nothing before me to suggest that the information has been made publicly available i.e. that access has been made available to the public generally as opposed to the appellant directly. Since it has not been established that the entirety of the information is not publicly available, article 7(3)(a)(i) cannot apply.
29. The question then arises as to whether it is reasonable for the Council to provide the appellant with two separate documents, in two separate formats. As article 7(3)(b) makes clear, it is for the public authority in question to provide reasons as to the basis on which it considers the provision of information in an alternative form or manner to be justified. The Council has stated, in its correspondence to the appellant of 14 April 2023 outlining its effective position, that “it is more reasonable and timely for your request to be granted in PDF format”. It provided no further detail in that correspondence in support of its position. This statement from the Council does not provide support for the its position that providing access in PDF format “would be reasonable” in the circumstances where the Council were not forthcoming with any information on the precise steps that would be involved to provide the appellant with the information in the form which he requested or any relevant timeline required.
30. Further, I note the Council’s comments, in its letter to the appellant of 16 October 2023 that “the county road schedule GIS data forms part of the national centralised dataset associated with the Map Road PMS system managed by the Roads Management Office on behalf of all Local Authorities”. Additionally, I note its position that “it would be necessary for the authority to extract a subset of this data thereby creating a new record to facilitate the [appellant’s] request”. Again, what the Council has not provided here is any indication as to how long it would take for them to extract the data in format required. In addition, the appellant stated in his internal review request that he specifically requested the information in GIS form due to the ability to carry out spatial analysis with other datasets. The Council did not respond to this statement within its effective position. There was also no indication from the Council at any stage of any reasoning as to why the requested information could not have been extracted in the form requested within the time in which a decision was required.
31. Considering that this appeal was submitted by the appellant on the basis of a deemed refusal by the Council, upon realising that a response would not be issued within the timeframe specified by the appellant, or within one month of receipt of the request, the Council should have notified the appellant that it required an extension of time to respond, as provided for under article 7(2)(b) of the AIE Regulations. This would have also provided the Council with an opportunity to set out its reasons for the requirement of a time extension, and also given them ample scope to precisely set out the steps required to fulfil the appellant’s request and extract the data as noted above. However, it does not appear that either of these scenarios occurred in this case.
32. The reasonableness requirement in article 7(3)(a)(ii) must be interpreted teleologically in line with the purpose of the Directive (see National Asset Management Agency v Commissioner for Environmental Information [2015] IESC 51, paragraph 10). While I acknowledge the Council’s efforts to comply with the requirements of article 5(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations to take “reasonable efforts to maintain environmental information held by or for it in a manner that is readily reproducible and accessible by information technology or by other electronic means” through publication of the WebMap PDF, the issue remains in this case that the form or manner provided to the appellant does not wholly satisfy his request for information. The Council has indicated in its letter of 14 April 2023 that providing the appellant with the information requested in PDF format protects its commercial interests and that the data sets may not be complete and are updated regularly. However, it does not provide any indication as to how its commercial interests might be hampered by provision of the information in GIS format or why the fact that the data representing public roads as at the date of his request is subject to change would make it reasonable to provide the information in PDF format. Nor has it suggested any other basis on which it is reasonable to expect the appellant to attempt to link the sections of road which have been subsidised under the CIS to the Road Map when the appellant argues that the format provided does not allow him to do this.
33. Additionally, I note that the Council have not suggested that it would not be possible to collate the requested information in the form requested by the appellant. The Council’s letter of 16 February 2023 stated that “the GIS data forms part of the national centralised dataset…managed by the Roads Management Office on behalf of all Local Authorities” and “it would be necessary for the authority to extract a subset of this data…to facilitate the request”. The Council’s objection to doing so is on the grounds that this would create a new record. However, the AIE Regulations are concerned with access to information, not records. By using the word extract, it suggests that the Council would merely be required to make some of the information it holds available to the appellant in the requested form.
34. Articles 3(5) and 7 of the AIE Directive make it clear that arrangements must be in place to ensure the public are adequately supported in seeking access to information and that public authorities take steps to ensure that access can be effectively exercised. It is my view that there is not sufficient information before me to suggest that it is reasonable to point the appellant to the PDF road network map and Excel document provided in this case when this does not fully satisfy his original request, especially when it would appear that the Council have the means to extract the information requested from a data system which is already in existence. Accordingly, I do not see how I can conclude that it is reasonable for the Council to provide the appellant with information in an alternative form or manner to that requested.
35. Therefore, taking all of the above into account, I do not consider that the Council has established that the conditions set out in article 7(3)(a)(i) or 7(3)(a)(ii) to have been satisfied, and accordingly 7(3) does not apply.
Application of article 9
36. In circumstances where I do not consider article 7(3) to permit the Council to provide the requested information to the appellant in the form it seeks, I will go on to consider whether any of the grounds for refusal referenced by the Council in its decision letter of 14 April 2023, can be said to apply in the circumstances of this case. Although the Council stated that it was providing the requested road network to the appellant in PDF format, it then proceeded to refuse the request in GIS format on the basis of article 9(1)(c), article 9(2)(c) and article 9(2)(d) of the AIE Regulations. I note that it is somewhat confusing and contradictory that the Council would argue both that it has satisfied the appellant’s request having regard to article 7(3) while also seeking to argue that it is entitled to refuse the request. I will consider each of the grounds for refusal relied on by the Council in turn.
37. Article 9(1)(c) of the AIE Regulations allows a public authority to refuse a request for information “where the disclosure of the information requested would adversely affect commercial or industrial confidentiality, where such confidentiality is provided for in national and Community law to protect a legitimate economic interest”. A number of elements are required in order to engage the exemption provided for in this article:
a. The information must be commercial or industrial in nature.
b. The confidentiality of the information must be provided for by law.
c. The confidentiality must protecting a legitimate economic interest.
d. The confidentiality must be adversely affected by disclosure.
38. In order to show that the confidentiality is protecting a legitimate economic interest as required by article 9(1)(c), there must be some adverse effect on the legitimate economic interest that the confidentiality is designed to protect.
39. The AIE Regulations do not specifically provide that it is for a public authority to demonstrate that the refusal to make environmental information available is justified. However, Recital 16 of the AIE Directive provides that “the right to information means that disclosure of information should be the general rule and that public authorities should be permitted to refuse a request for environmental information in specific and clearly defined cases”. Article 10(4) of the Regulations provides that the grounds for refusal of a request must be interpreted on a restrictive basis having regard to the public interest served by disclosure. I therefore consider that the scheme of the AIE Regulations and the Directive make it clear that there is a presumption in favour of the release of environmental information and that it is generally for the public authority seeking to withhold information to establish that it is entitled to do so having regard to the grounds for refusal set out in the Regulations.
40. My view in this regard is supported by the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union in C-619/19 Land Baden-Württenberg v DR which makes it clear that “…a public authority which adopts a decision refusing access to environmental information must set out the reasons why it considers that the disclosure of that information could specifically and actually undermine the interest protected by the exceptions relied upon” and that “the risk of that interest being undermined must be reasonably foreseeable and not purely hypothetical”. Accordingly, when relying on article 9(1)(c) the Council must set out the reasons why it considers that disclosure of the information at issue could specifically and actually undermine the economic interest identified. If no adverse effect on the economic interest identified is established, then article 9(1)(c) cannot be relied upon.
41. The Council submitted that refusing the appellant’s request for information to be provided in GIS format would “protect the commercial interests of Cavan County Council”, but apart from this brief reference to commercial interests it has not provided any indication of how release of the information in GIS format would give rise to a reasonably foreseeable adverse impact on commercial or industrial confidentiality. It has provided no substantive submissions regarding the application of article 9(1)(c) to the refusal in GIS format, despite having the opportunity to do so. The Council has not identified the legitimate economic interest at play, how any confidentiality might be provided for in national or Community law or any adverse effect which might result from the disclosure of the information. Each of the conditions set out above must be satisfied before article 9(1)(c) can be said to apply. Nor is it clear to me how article 9(1)(c) could be considered to apply to release of the information in GIS format in circumstances where the information at issue is already available to the public to view online or download in interactive WebMap PDF format. Based on the information before me, I do not consider there to be any basis on which I could conclude that article 9(1)(c) provides grounds for refusal of access to the appellant’s request in GIS format.
42. Article 9(2)(c) of the AIE Regulations allows a public authority to refuse a request for information where the request concerns material in the course of completion, or unfinished documents or data. In refusing the appellant’s request for a copy of Cavan’s public road network in GIS format under article 9(2)(c), the Council submitted the following:
“The roads schedule is organic. The Road numbers and locations in the main, remain constant. The data sets may not be complete and are updated regularly”.
43. In the first instance, I am not satisfied that it has been established that the appellant’s request in fact concerns “material in the course of completion” or “unfinished documents or data”. The only detail provided by the Council in support of its reliance on article 9(2)(c) is that “the data sets may not be complete”. The Aarhus Guide notes that: ““the words ‘in the course of completion suggest that the term refers to individual documents that are actively being worked on by the public authority. Once those documents are no longer in the course of completion they may be released, even if they are still unfinished and even if the decision to which they pertain has not yet been resolved. ‘In the course of completion’ suggests that the document will have more work done on it within some reasonable timeframe”. While I accept that the Aarhus Guide is an aid to interpretation, rather than a binding document, this interpretation accords with the wording of article 4(1)(d) of the AIE Directive and article 9(2)(c) of the Regulations. There is no suggestion that the Council is actively working on the data sets in question and I do not consider there is any basis on which I could conclude that the request concerns material in the course of completion. While I accept that amendments to the public road network may occur in the future, I do not consider the request to concern unfinished documents or data since the appellant’s request should be understood as one for information on the public road network as at the date of his request.
44. In any case, the decision of the CJEU in Land Baden-Württenberg, as outlined above, has made it clear that a public authority seeking to refuse environmental information must set out how it considers disclosure of that information could specifically and actually undermine the interest protected by the exception relied upon. The CJEU also found that the purpose of the exception concerning material in the course of completion or unfinished documents is “to meet the need of public authorities to have protected space in order to engage in reflection and to pursue internal discussions” (paragraph 69). Even if the request did concern material in the course of completion or unfinished data, I do not see how provision of the information in GIS format could have an adverse impact on the Council’s private thinking space in circumstances where an interactive Webmap version is publicly available at the Council offices and via its website.
45. The Council submitted that the interactive Webmap “displays the full road schedule, containing road numbers, road name and road class, and contains background OSi Mapping”, and also highlighted that on the whole, the road numbers and locations remain static. The MapViewer which holds the interactive Webmap version of the road network on the Council’s website also sets out that “the road schedule information displayed on the map is not live data and is subject to periodic updates. The map is deemed as a reference document only and should not be considered as being wholly definitive”. It appears to me that a similar approach could be taken were the information released in GIS format.
46. The Council has also not established how article 9(2)(c) provides grounds for refusal of information on the public road network in GIS format when its position is also that the information is already publicly available as a completed document on a WebMap in PDF format. Nor do I consider, on the basis of the information before me, that it is possible to conclude that the request concerns material in the course of completion, unfinished documents or data or that disclosure of the information requested would give rise to a reasonably foreseeable adverse impact on the interest that reliance on article 9(2)(c) is designed to protect. For these reasons, I cannot find, on the basis of the information before me, that article 9(2)(c) provides grounds for refusal of the appellant’s request for the public road network in GIS format.
47. Article 9(2)(d) of the AIE Regulations allows a public authority to refuse a request for information where the request concerns internal communications of public authorities, taking into account the public interest served by the disclosure. When relying on article 9(2)(d), the public authority should show that the information at issue is an “internal communication” such that it falls within the scope of the exception. The Council have not provided any reasons for its reliance on article 9(2)(d). It merely reiterated the identical text which was used for its refusal of GIS format under article 9(2)(c), and has not identified how the information amounts to “internal communications”.
48. The term “internal communications” is not defined in the AIE Regulations, the AIE Directive, or the Aarhus Convention. However, the CJEU decision in Land Baden-Württenberg provides some guidance on the internal communications exception. It notes that the term “communications”, should be given a separate meaning to the terms “material” or “document” (paragraph 40), and that it can be interpreted as relating to “information addressed by an author to someone, an addressee who or which may be an abstract entity – such as ‘members’ of an administration or the ‘executive board’ of a legal person – or a specific person belonging to that entity, such as a member of staff or an official” (paragraph 37). It further notes that not all environmental information held by a public authority is necessarily “internal” and states that the “internal communications” exception:
“…must be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘internal communications’ covers all information which circulates within a public authority and which, on the date of the request for access, has not left that authority’s internal sphere – as the case may be, after being received by that authority, provided that it was not or should not have been made available to the public before it was so received”
49. The appellant has requested a copy of the public road network in County Cavan in GIS format along with information on the sections of that network which have been subsidised under the CIS. This does not satisfy the definition of “internal communications” set out above. A copy of the road network is available on the Council’s website and it has provided the appellant with an Excel spreadsheet indicating sections of the network which have been subsidised, albeit not in the form or manner requested by him. All of this information has therefore left the Council’s internal sphere. Consequently, based on the information before me, it is my view that article 9(2)(d) does not apply.
50. Taking all of the above into account, I therefore do not consider article 9(1)(c), 9(2)(c) or 9(2)(d) to provide the Council with grounds to refuse the appellant’s request.
Conclusion
51. In cases which relate to the form or manner of access, it is open for this Office to direct release of the information in the format requested by the appellant or to remit the matter back to public authorities for a fresh decision making process. As previously set out above, the Council alluded to having the means to collate the requested information in GIS format by setting out as follows:
“it would be necessary for the authority to extract a subset of this data thereby creating a new record to facilitate the [appellant’s] request”.
52. There was no suggestion from the Council at any stage in this case that the extraction of this data in GIS format would be particularly onerous nor was any indication given of any timeline on how long such a task would take to complete. It would be within the realms of the investigation process to request further submissions from the Council on these queries, however the Council were already offered the opportunity to provide final submissions by the Investigator in this case and declined to do so. The Investigator took the view that when offered the chance to provide final submissions, that was the Council’s opportunity to highlight any issues with extracting the information.
53. Consequently, where I have found that the specific articles relied on by the Council do not apply in this case, and where no suggestion was given that the Council could not extract the requested subset of data in GIS format, I am satisfied that it is reasonable, and within this Office’s jurisdiction, to require the Council to undertake the extraction exercise as set out by it in its letter of 16 February 2023 and compile the information so that it can be provided in the form or manner requested for the following reasons:
i. Article 12(5)(c) provides the Commissioner with jurisdiction “where appropriate” to “require the public authority to make available environmental information to an appellant”.
ii. Article 7(3) of the Regulations makes it clear that a public authority shall provide information in the form or manner requested by an appellant unless it can demonstrate that the limited exceptions provided for in that article apply. The Council has not demonstrated that either of the exceptions contained in article 7(3) apply in the circumstances of this case.
iii. Article 5(1)(b) makes it clear that there is an obligation on public authorities to make all reasonable efforts to maintain environmental information held by or for it in a manner that is readily reproducible and accessible by information technology or by other electronic means”.
iv. The Council has already made submissions on the exceptions to the obligation to provide environmental information set out in the AIE Regulations and I have found that none of those exceptions apply. Remitting the case to the Council for further consideration would provide it with what would, in my view, be an unwarranted opportunity to provide further reasons for its refusal to provide the information in accordance with its obligations under article 7(3) in circumstances where it failed to provide sufficient reasons both in its interactions with the appellant and in the course of engagements with this Office.
54. Having carried out a review under article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, on behalf of the Commissioner for Environmental Information, I annul the Council’s decision and direct it to provide the information requested by the appellant to him in the form and manner requested.
55. 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