Decision
Mr F and Coillte
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-163548-Z2W2H3
Published on
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-163548-Z2W2H3
Published on
Whether or not the request has been adequately answered or has otherwise been dealt with in accordance with article 3, 4 or 5 of the AIE Directive (article 11(5) of the AIE Regulations).
1. On 8 August 2025 the appellant made an AIE request for:
“All monitoring records held by or for Coillte in relation to LK07-FL0179
Dates of Harvesting and Haulage Operations
Invoices from contractors for any management works related to this project.
Chain of Custody Documentation”.
2. On 8 September 2025 Coillte issued its original decision partially granting the request, subject to a charge. A number of records identified as coming within the scope of the request were subject to some redactions, with Coillte contending that the information at issue was not environmental information pursuant to article 3(1) of the AIE Regulations and, notwithstanding this contention, that it was also afforded protection by the provisions of article 8(a)(i).
3. On 8 September 2025 the appellant requested an internal review decision on the basis of the redacted information.
4. On 9 October 2025 the appellant appealed to this Office, on the basis that he had not received an internal review decision from Coillte. This appeal was set up under case reference number OCE-163392-Q5M4H1.
5. Following notification of the acceptance of the appeal on 10 October 2025, Coillte issued an internal review decision to the appellant, which acknowledged it should have been issued by 8 October. This Office wrote to the appellant to state that the internal review had now issued, therefore the case reference number OCE-163392-Q5M4H1 would be closed, and no further action would be taken with it at this time. The appellant responded the same day stating“Coillte did not provide me with a decision within the statutory period. That was the basis for my appeal. Issuing a decision outside the statutory period does not remedy that failure therefore I wish my appeal to proceed on the original basis that the public authority failed to comply with the statutory timeframe and that my timely access to environmental information has been compromised. The failure cannot be remedied by a late decision. The Commissioner's role is that of an adjudicator not a mediator.”
6. Coillte sent this Office its submission on 23 October 2025 stating“The appellant’s statement of appeal appears to focus on the statutory time limits under the AIE Regulations for issuing an internal review decision, and it is unclear which aspects of Coillte’s decision are actually being appealed. I attach a copy of the unredacted records granted to [the appellant] with the first instance decision, subject to payment of a charge. [the appellant] has yet to discharge our invoice and therefore, has not yet received the records”.
7. On 23 October 2025 the appellant made the following submission to this Office,“Coillte failed to comply with the Regulations and issue a timely decision on my request to provide environmental information as soon as possible and within the fixed time periods of the Regulations. This failure cannot be remedied by issuing a late decision or belatedly releasing information outside of the timescales of the Regulations. Remitting the case cannot remedy an untimely decision. The only ground of defence of the [public authority] is that request dates were incorrect, or requests were not received or otherwise not made in conformance with the Regulations. That is not being contested by the [public authority].
Permitting a [public authority] to issue decisions that are considered to be valid outside of the timeframes of the Regulations without the consent of the requester subverts the letter and spirit of the Regulations.
Where an appeal is made based on a deemed refusal the [public authority] should only be given the opportunity to defend the refusal unless the requester consents otherwise. The application of the "effective position" procedure by the OCEI must be limited to the reason for the deemed refusal unless the requester agrees otherwise.
In this case Coillte has admitted that a decision should have been issued but did not. Coillte is not contesting my ground of appeal - that the request was deemed to be refused. The decision (deemed refusal) must be annulled as it did not comply with the Regulations.”
8. I am directed by the Commissioner to carry out 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 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’).
9. A review by this Office is considered to be de novo, which means that it is based on the circumstances and the law as they pertain at the time of this decision. This approach has been endorsed by the decision of the High Court in M50 Skip Hire Recycling Limited v the Commissioner for Environmental Information 2020 IEHC 430 .
10. It is clear from the comments of the Court of Appeal in Redmond & Another v Commissioner for Environmental Information & Another 2020 IECA 83 , at paragraph 51, that the nature of a review by this Office is inquisitorial, rather than adversarial in nature. The extent of the inquiry is determined by this Office and not by the parties to the appeal.
11. I am satisfied that in light of the inquisitorial and de novo nature of reviews conducted by this Office that I am entitled to have regard to the internal review decision issued by Coillte on 10 October 2025.
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.
13. In this case, the appellant has confined his appeal to the issue of timeliness of the issuing of the internal review decision. As such, the scope of my review is confined to whether or not the request has been adequately answered or has otherwise been dealt with in accordance with article 3, 4 or 5 of the AIE Directive (see article 11(5) of the AIE Regulations).
14. Article 3(2) and 4(5) of the AIE Directive, read together, require public authorities to respond substantively to a request for information:
(a) as soon as possible or, at the latest, within one month after receipt of the request; or
(b) within two months after the receipt of the request if the volume and the complexity of the information is such that the one-month period cannot be complied with (although in such cases the requester must be informed as soon as possible, and in any case before the end of the one-month period, of any such extension and of the reasons for it).
15. Article 6(1) of the AIE Directive provides for consideration of the matter on review by the public authority concerned to be expeditious.
16. Those provisions have been implemented in Ireland by articles 7(2) and 11(3) of the AIE Regulations. Article 11(3) provides that an internal review must be notified to the requester within one month of receipt of the request for the internal review.
17. Article 11 of the AIE Directions outlines the actions a public authority must take with respect to an internal review decision request, it states that:
“(1) Where the applicant’s request has been refused under article 7, in whole or in part, the applicant may, not later than one month following receipt of the decision of the public authority concerned, request the public authority to review the decision, in whole or in part.
(2) Following receipt of a request for a review under sub-article (1), the public authority concerned shall designate a person unconnected with the original decision whose rank is the same as, or higher than, that of the original decision-maker to review the decision and that person shall— (a) affirm, vary or annul the decision, and (b) where appropriate, require the public authority to make available environmental information to the applicant, in accordance with these Regulations.
(3) A decision under sub-article (2) shall be notified to the applicant within one month from receipt of the request for the internal review”.
18. The need for timely access to environmental information and for public authorities to comply with the timeframes set out in the AIE Regulations with respect to internal review decisions/effective positions has been acknowledged previously by the Commissioner, most recently in the 2024 OCEI Annual Review .
19. In this case the internal review decision issued to the appellant two days after the prescribed one-month time frame. I acknowledge this represents a delay in the statutory timeframe, pursuant to article 11(3). Coillte acknowledged this in the internal review which issued to the appellant on 10 October“I note that an internal review decision should have issued to you on or by 08 October 2025, and this was not done, for which Coillte apologise.”
20. As set out above, Coillte has now issued its internal review to the appellant. I acknowledge that it was not issued within the prescribed statutory timeframe – this is not in dispute. I would urge Coillte to process all requests in a timely fashion and to meet its statutory obligations in this regard. However, as Coillte has now issued its internal review, and no other aspect of the decision is subject to appeal, I affirm the decision of Coillte and do not require it take any further action.
21. Having carried out a review under article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, I am satisfied the appellant’s request has been adequately answered or has otherwise been dealt with in accordance with Article 3, 4 or 5 of the AIE Directive (see article 11(5) of the AIE Regulations).
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.
Gemma Farrell
Senior Investigator
Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information