Decision
Mr F. and Coillte
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-163046-Q3M5F5
Published on
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-163046-Q3M5F5
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).
10 February 2026
1. On 4 July 2025 the appellant made an AIE request to Coillte via its info@coillte.ie email address, for the below information:
“I wish to receive, with reference to 4.1 of SOP-009, since 14/02/2021 Information related to incidents reported by contractors to the local Coillte Manager which involved the initiation of the Contractors Emergency Response Pollution Incident Plan” .
2. On 7 July 2025 Coillte reverted to the appellant directing him to send the request via a different email address, stating “please submit all AIE related correspondence directly to aie@coillte.ie ”.
3. On 5 August 2025 the appellant made an internal review request, stating“I wish to request an internal review of this request based on a deemed refusal” .
4. On 8 September the appellant made an appeal to this Office on the basis of the deemed refusal with respect to the AIE request, this was given case reference number OCE-162238-T7R0F9.
5. On 24 September 2025 Coillte issued an internal review decision, granting access to relevant records subject to a fee and outlining its procedure with respect to receiving and processing AIE requests via email, stating:
“In order to manage the significant number of AIE requests received on a daily basis, Coillte set up a dedicated mailbox to (i) manage the process efficiently and (ii) to ensure compliance with the AIE Regulations. The dedicated mailbox system is based on the OCEI model, whereby a dedicated mailbox is in place to manage requests to the Commissioner’s Office. As a frequent requester to Coillte you are familiar with the process and had been submitting AIE requests through this mailbox. I note that you now refuse to submit AIE requests to Coillte’s dedicated ‘aie mailbox’ and are now issuing AIE requests to (i) a different mailbox in Coillte and (ii) directly to Coillte staff email accounts. I note that you did not submit this Request to the appropriate mailbox in Coillte and consequently, it was not processed by the AIE Team in a timely manner at first decision and internal review stages. Coillte reserve the right to implement processes and procedures to manage the AIE process and consequently submitting an AIE request to Coillte has become more streamlined for the benefit of the applicant” .
6. As the internal review decision was issued, case OCE-162238-T7R0F9 was closed.
7. On 29 September the appellant appealed to this Office, on the basis of the timeliness of the internal review decision issuing, stating in a subsequent submission that:“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” .
8. I have been directed by the Commissioner to undertake 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 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 24 September 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 outside of 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 24 September 2025, providing reasons for same.
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).
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