Decision
Mr. X and Forestry Appeals Committee
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-155161-X5W7R5
Published on
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-155161-X5W7R5
Published on
Whether the Department had provided the appellant with all relevant information in accordance with article 7(1) of the AIE Regulations and whether the FAC had established that it did not hold any further information in accordance with article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations.
3 December 2025
1. On 23 September 2024, the appellant submitted a request to the FAC requesting access to information on the following:
“All information related to the Stakeholder Meetings held between the FAC and DAFM in 2023. To also include post meeting follow up engagement.”
2. On 23 October 2024, the FAC notified the appellant that in accordance with article 7(2) of the AIE Regulations, it was extending the timeframe to issue its decision by one month. It confirmed that the reason for this time extension was due to“the resource issues and work load, [and that] it will not be possible to make a decision on your request within the standard one-month timeframe.”
3. On 2 November 2024, the appellant sought an internal review from the FAC, based on a deemed refusal of his AIE request.
4. On 6 December 2024, the appellant issued a reminder to the FAC with the following:
“Does the FAC intend to issue a belated decision on my request for an internal review (2-11-24) of this request?”
The FAC failed to respond to this reminder in a timely manner.
5. On 9 December 2024, the appellant submitted an appeal to this Office on the grounds of a deemed refusal by the FAC.
6. This Office then wrote to the FAC requesting that it provide the appellant with a letter setting out its effective position in relation to the appellant’s internal review request and outlining reasons for this position, as soon as possible.
7. On 23 December 2024, the FAC issued its internal review decision to the appellant. It granted him access to information pertaining to two meeting records for the FAC stakeholder meetings with DAFM, which took place on the 17 January 2023 and 20 June 2023.
8. On 9 January 2025, the appellant advised this Office that he wished to proceed with his appeal.
9. 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 Forestry Appeals Committee.
In addition, I have had regard to:
a. 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);
b. Directive 2003/4/EC (the AIE Directive), upon which the AIE Regulations are based;
c. 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
d. The Aarhus Convention—An Implementation Guide (Second edition, June 2014) (‘the Aarhus Guide’).
10. What follows does not comment or make findings on each and every argument advanced but all relevant points have been considered.
11. 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. Where appropriate in the circumstances of an appeal, the public authority may be directed to make available environmental information to the appellant.
12. The scope of this review is confined to whether the FAC has taken reasonable and adequate steps to identify all information held by or for it within the scope of the appellant’s request such that article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations applies.
13. Article 7(2)(a) of the AIE Regulations provides “a public authority shall make a decision on a request and, where appropriate, make the information available to the applicant as soon as possible and, at the latest, but subject to paragraph (b) and sub article (10), not later than one month from the date on which such request is received by the public authority concerned.” Article 7(10) of the AIE Regulations provides a public authority shall, in the performance of its functions under this article, have regard to any timescale specified by the applicant. Article 11(3) of the AIE Regulations provides that an internal review decision “shall be notified to the applicant within one month from receipt of the request for the internal review.”
14. The appellant argues that FAC should not have extended the statutory timeframe by one month to issue its original decision because he is of the view that“resource issues and work load are not an adequate reason to do so”. He contends that the FAC failed to have“due regard” to the required statutory time frame. Shortly thereafter, the appellant submitted an internal review request to the FAC.
15. I acknowledge that the internal review decision was also not issued within the one-month time period and that the appellant had to issue a reminder to the FAC regarding same. I note that the FAC did not reply to this reminder for an internal review decision and therefore, the appellant proceeded to submit an appeal to this Office. Subsequently, the FAC did issue a statement of its effective position and it did contain an apology for missing this deadline. Whilst I acknowledge that the FAC did issue an apology at a late stage to the appellant, it is imperative that it should take measures to ensure that decisions in respect of AIE requests are issued in a timely manner in future.
16. The general thrust of the appellant’s appeal is that the FAC has failed to provide sufficient detail regarding the searches, which they undertook in its decision.
17. In its internal review decision, the FAC stated that its search process included as follows:
“[A]n examination of material held by members of the Forestry Appeals Committee and the Forestry Appeals Committee administration [and] a search of all physical files, diaries, notebooks and electronic files”.
During its search process, the FAC identified two meeting agendas that were relevant to the appellant’s request. It granted the appellant with access to both records.
18. In his appeal, the appellant has highlighted how he had tried to engage with the FAC regarding the nature and detail of the searches undertaken but that he was not satisfied with the response received.
19. Article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations is the relevant provision to consider where the question arises as to whether the requested environmental information or any further environmental information is held by or for the public authority concerned.
It provides as follows:
“Where a request is made to a public authority and the information requested is not held by or for the authority concerned, that authority shall inform the applicant as soon as possible that the information is not held by or for it .”
20. This Office’s approach to dealing with this type of case is to assess whether adequate steps have been taken to identify and locate relevant environmental information, having regard to the circumstances. In determining whether the steps taken are adequate in the circumstances, a standard of reasonableness is applied.
21. What will be considered reasonable will vary from case to case, but as a general guide, I set out below the type of information that my Office would generally expect to be set out in a decision where a public authority is relying on article 7(5) of the Regulations;
I. an outline of exactly which areas/units etc. of the organisation were searched for the information;
II. an explanation of how searches were carried out (i.e. manually, by computer, by name, by key words). Keywords should be recorded and provided in the decision as appropriate;
III. details of the individuals consulted in connection with the search;
IV. a description of the searches carried out to cover the possibility of misfiled/misplaced records;
V. details of guidelines, practices, procedures and arrangements in relation to the storage, filing, archiving, retention and destruction of the type of information requested in this case;
VI. the basis on which the public authority has concluded that it does not hold any information within the scope of the appellant’s request and that no such information is held by any other person or body on its behalf.
22. In submission provided to this Office during the course of the appeal, the FAC provided a comprehensive overview of the searches carried out in respect of this request. It highlighted how it had requested all members of the FAC and all administrative staff within the department to undertake a search of all relevant electronic and hardcopy materials pertaining to the appellant’s request. It confirmed that it had applied the search-terms“stakeholder meeting, stakeholder, DAFM meeting, meeting, meeting 2023” when searching all electronic files, which included emails (shared and individual), diaries, notebooks, hard drives and laptops. It confirmed that staff carried out the necessary searches of their email inboxes and it included both subject bar and body of emails. It affirmed that it had also searched all files types within 2023 and 2024 on its eDocs system. The FAC explained how its eDocs system system is similar to MS Outlook, as filter tools may be applied when searching for relevant information pertaining to a request. It confirmed that the results of its searches resulted in the retrieval of two meeting records relevant to stakeholders’ meetings with DAFM on 17 January 2023 and 20 June 2023. In conclusion, the FAC reiterated that it had released both meeting records relevant to his request, to the appellant on 23 December 2024.
23. In response to this Office’s query regarding misfiled or misplaced records, the FAC confirmed that it was satisfied that no files or documents had been destroyed and that only two meeting records existed which were relevant to the appellant’s request.
24. While the appellant raised a number of additional queries in relation to the information provided by the FAC, and I have considered each of his points in full, I am satisfied that the FAC have taken reasonable steps in this instance to satisfy its obligations under article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations. It is important to note that we do not generally expect public authorities to carry out extensive or indefinite searches for records simply because an applicant asserts that more records should or might exist or rejects a public authorities’ explanation as to why a record does not exist. What is required to rely on article 7(5) is that the public authority has taken all reasonable steps to locate the record sought.
25. Having carried out a review under article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, I hereby affirm the FAC’s decision under article 7(5) in this case.
26. It is notable in this case that while I am satisfied with the information provided by the FAC to the OCEI concerning this appeal, the internal review decision provided to the appellant did not contain the level of detail that was provided by the FAC in it’s submission. I remind the FAC of their duty to give reasons, most crucially at internal review decision stage, when issuing decisions under the AIE regime.
27. However, as a review by the Commissioner is de novo, a decision of this Office is made based on the facts and circumstances at the time the decision is made and for this reason I am affirming the decision of the FAC.
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