Decision
Mr. X & Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-164529-Y5F0D7
Published on
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-164529-Y5F0D7
Published on
Whether the Department was justified in refusing the appellant’s request on the basis that no further environmental information within the scope of that request is held by or for it.
13 March 2026
The AIE Request
1. On 19 June 2025, the appellant made a request to the Department under the AIE Regulations seeking access to the following:
“I wish to receive, for the period 1-12-24 to date Information related to any correspondence between DAFM and the European Commission on the subject of Storm Damage to forests. Please interpret this request broadly. Please provide a schedule of records with your decision. Please ensure that all records provided are compatible with Assistive Technology.”
2. On 23 July 2025, the Department issued its original decision and refused the appellant’s request, on the basis that no records relevant to the request were held by the authority.
3. On the same day the appellant requested an internal review from the Department expressing the view that‘adequate searches have not been undertaken.’
First Internal Review Decision (Department Ref: AIE/25/226 and OCEI reference OCE-161727 Q8D6L5)
4. On 20 August 2025, the Department issued an internal review decision annulling the original decision and provided one record that the Decision Maker believed was relevant to the appellant’s original request, while providing details of further searches which were conducted at internal review stage.
5. The appellant submitted an appeal to this Office on 22 August 2025.
6. In the decision on that appeal OCE-161727 Q8D6L5 dated 30 October 2025, the Commissioner found that the reasons issued by the Department for this case – and the four other cases which formed part of the decision - were not sufficient having regard to the AIE Regulations and Directive.
7. Given the circumstances of the appeals, the Commissioner annulled the internal review decisions in each appeal and remitted the case to the Department and directed that to issue a new internal review decision to the appellant in each case.
New Internal Review Decision
8. On 12 November 2025, the Department issued a new internal review decision on the appellant’s request, annulling the previous Decision Maker’s decision to grant the appellant’s request and provided one additional record.
Current appeal
9. On 13 November, the appellant submitted a further appeal to this Office.
10. I am directed by the Commissioner for Environmental Information to carry out a review of this appeal. I have now completed this 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 by the Department. 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’).
11. What follows does not comment or make findings on each and every argument advanced, but all relevant points have been considered.
12. 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.
13. Pursuant to article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations, this review is concerned with whether the Department was justified in refusing access to the information requested by the appellant on the basis that no further information within the scope of the request is held by the Department.
14. Article 7(1) of the AIE Regulations requires public authorities to make available environmental information that is held by or for them on request, subject only to the provisions of the AIE Regulations.
15. 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. In cases where a public authority has refused a request under article 7(5), this Office 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 is applied. It is not normally this Office’s function to search for environmental information.
16. In its new internal review decision issued to the appellant on 12 November 2025, the Department reiterated the searches undertaken as part of the original request while also providing detail on the additional searches carried out. Searches carried out as part of the original request include:
1. A searching email was sent to the Head of the Forestry Inspectorate requesting any records in relation to your request. He responded that he had carried out a search of his email inbox using the keywords “DG”, “Envi”, Sibylle”, “Grohs” and “Delany”, but identified no records relevant to your request. He stated that he was aware of a meeting held in February with the Director of Forestry and some EU Commission staff but that he had no records notes or emails in connection with this meeting.
2. A searching email was sent to the Director of Forestry requesting any records in relation to your request. He responded that he had carried out a search of his email inbox using the following search criteria: i. “Forest Windblow Event” ii. “Meeting” iii. Date: February 2025 These searches identified one record relevant to your request. This record is a Webex meeting invitation.
3. A searching email was sent to a Grade 1 Forestry Inspector who was listed as an attendee of the above meeting. The Forestry Inspector responded with the following response, “I was only told of the intended scope of the meeting verbally, by the Head of the Division. That, as I recall, was to apprise the Commission of the recent storm events in Ireland and consequent damage to forests and to seek their views on responses to the same, including the Commission’s experiences of similar events and how Competent Authorities responded to them in other EU Member States. No agenda or other documentation in relation to meeting was shared with me. accepted the WebEx invitation to the meeting on 14th February 2025. However, on the day or the day before the meeting, both [named staff member] and I were advised, again verbally, our attendance was not required.”
The Inspector carried out the following searches:
• Email inbox o Searched using the following criteria:
• European Commission
• 17th February 2025
As a result of this search, one (1) record was found. This record was a calendar event response to the same Webex meeting identified previously.
Additional searches.
1. A Higher Executive Officer in Forestry Policy. The HEO responded to say that they were not present at any meeting with the EC on this subject nor were they aware of any other DAFM staff not previously identified who may have been involved in the meeting or any correspondence relevant to your request.
2. A second Higher Executive Officer in Forestry Policy. The HEO responded to say that they had carried out searches of their email and could not identify any records relevant to your request. They further suggested contacting a Senior Inspector with the Forestry Inspectorate who may have records.
3. A Senior Inspector with the Forestry Inspectorate. The SI conducted the following searches: o Email inbox The Si searched their personal email inbox using the criteria, “Correspondence EC”, “CION”, “Storm Damage EC” – no relevant records were returned. o Personal drive The SI searched their personal drive using the criteria, “Correspondence EC”, “CION”, “Storm Damage EC” – no relevant records were returned. o Physical records The SI carried out a search of physical records for references to any of the following terms: “CION”, “Storm Damage”, “EC” – no relevant records were identified.
4. A Grade II Inspector with the Forestry Inspectorate. The Inspector responded to say that they were not involved in discussions with the EC regarding storm damage but carried out a search of their email inbox for records using the criteria below. “Storm Damage”, “EC” – no relevant records identified.
5. A Grade I inspector in Environment Section. The Inspector was contacted to confirm that they did not attend the meeting. It was confirmed that they did not and that they had no records except the Webex invitation which had already been identified.
17. In its new internal review decision, the Department has stated that a second searching email was sent to the Director of Forestry requesting any records in relation to this request. In response the Director carried out a search of his email, personal drive and physical records using the criteria, “Marco Onida”, “CION”, “Sibylle Grohs”.
18. Additionally, the internal review states that when asked to comment on the circumstances surrounding how the meeting came about, the Director responded to say, “that the meeting had been arranged by telephone with Marco Onida prior to the invitation being sent and there were no emails or other exchanges in relation to it”.
19. On 13 November 2025, the appellant appealed this decision with this Office stating, ‘I remain dissatisfied with the decision and wish to continue with the appeal.’
20. In submissions to this Office dated 18 November 2025, the appellant provided the following points in support of his position:
1. I am not satisfied that all reasonable steps have been taken to identify all information related (appellants emphasis) to the correspondence
2. The issue of information relating to preparation for the meeting is absent. DAFM sought the engagement and there must have been a purpose for that. Did the Director of Forestry make no preparation for the Meeting? Formal or informal agenda - notes on issues to raise, etc. How has such information been searched for?
3. The issue of records from the Meeting are absent - were formal Minutes taken; were notes taken during the meeting (these may be handwritten and not on any database). How has such information been searched for?
4. The issue of post Meeting follow up information is absent. How has such information been searched for?
5. All we have is a Webex meeting supposedly convened on the basis of a telephone call. When was the telephone call made - information on that call (date and time) is related to the correspondence and therefore falls within the scope of my request.
6. There is an absence of information on the rationale for the call / meeting. Is there no evidence base for why the Head of Forestry decided that a meeting with the Commission was necessary?
7. There is an absence of information as to why parties "required" to attend the meeting did not attend the meeting. It is not even clear who actually attended the meeting on behalf of DAFM. Is there information to explain why the attendance of Mr Byrnes and Mr Collins was not required?
8. My request should have elicited information that tells the story of why DAFM sought the meeting, what transpired at the meeting and any follow up. What has been provided is a single record which is a meeting invite. There is insufficient evidence that necessary searches have been conducted that would have identified any such information.
21. Article 7(5) of the AIE regulations allows a public authority to refuse a request if it does not hold the requested information. In order for a public authority to successfully rely on this provision, it must, amongst other things, provide evidence that it carried out adequate searches for the environmental information requested.
22. As outlined earlier in this decision, where a public authority refuses a request for records under article 7 (5) of the AIE Regulations, the question this Office must consider is whether the public authority has taken all reasonable steps to ascertain the whereabouts of relevant records. The Regulations do not require absolute certainty as to the existence or location of records, as situations arise where records are lost or simply cannot be found, or, indeed, may have been destroyed in line with the body’s records management policies. It is also important to note that the Commissioner does not generally expect public authorities to carry out extensive or indefinite general searches for records simply because an applicant asserts that more records should or might exist, or rejects a public authorises explanation of why a record does not exist. The test set out in article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations is whether the public authority has taken all reasonable steps to locate the information sought. It is important to note that the searches that would constitute an adequate, reasonable and appropriate response to fulfil an AIE request are specific to each request.
23. It is important to note that the searches that would constitute an adequate, reasonable and appropriate response to fulfil an AIE request are specific to each request.
24. I am of the view that the Department has demonstrated that it has carried out reasonable and appropriate searches to identify and retrieve the environmental information relevant to this request.
25. I acknowledge the appellant’s view that further information with respect to the meeting such as a formal agenda and/or minutes, details as to the origin of the meeting, its purpose and matters discussed, should exist and be held by the Department. However, it is outside the remit of this Office to adjudicate on how public authorities carry out their functions generally or, examining whether or not a public authority should have created a particular type of record in carrying out its functions.
26. It is important to note that the Commissioner does not generally expect public authorities to carry out extensive or indefinite general searches for records simply because an applicant asserts that more records should or might exist, or rejects a public authorises explanation of why a record does not exist.
27. Having considered the details of the searches provided by the Department to this Office, and the explanations provided regarding the search terms used, the location of such searches and the personnel who conducted such searches, I am satisfied that the Department it has taken sufficient steps to determine that it does not hold further environmental information relevant to the appellant’s request and accordingly it was justified in refusing access to the information sought under article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations on the grounds that it is not held by the Department.
28. Having carried out a review under article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, I affirm the Department’s decision with respect to the appellant’s request.
29. 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.
Gemma Farrell
On behalf of the Commissioner for Environmental Information