Decision
Mr. F & Coillte
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-153564-T1W4N3
Published on
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-153564-T1W4N3
Published on
Whether the Department was justified in refusing information within the scope of the request on the basis of article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations and whether it was justified in redacting information in records released to the appellant on the basis of articles 3(1) and 8(a)(i).
4 December 2025
1. On 6 September 2024 the appellant made a request for information under the AIE Regulations for:
“Information related to the construction, reopening, upgrade or maintenance of forest roads, recreation trails or other temporary/permanent roads/trails and their related drainage operations, and surfacing, to and adjacent to sea trout spawning pools on the Vartry River in Devils Glen, Wicklow to include, but not restricted to ;
1. Meetings - internal and external
2. Environmental Risk Assessment
3. Ecological Surveys
4. Screening under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive (including discussions in relation to the need for an Appropriate Assessment)
5. Assessment under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive
6. (i)Operational Records, including (ii) environmental monitoring
7. Date of works
8. Relevant Correspondence, internal and external - all media
9. Data collected on the Field Data Collector App.
10. Complaints and meetings to address the same Please consider the period 2022 to date.”
2. On 4 October 2024 Coillte issued its original decision, which refused access to the information requested, relying on article 7(5) of the Regulations in contending that the information is not held by or for it, stating:
“Coillte’s position in respect of the Request is that it been unable to locate any records relevant having taken all reasonable steps to locate the information sought and the Request is refused pursuant to Article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations ”.
3. In outlining the steps it had taken to identify information within the scope of the request Coillte stated:
“Following receipt and initial review of this Request by the AIE Team, it was assigned to the Estates Team in BAU 4 for their attention. Engagement subsequently took place with both the Estates Team Lead, Operations Manager and Environmental and Technical Specialist on 25.09.2024 and 02.10.2024 to discuss the Request in detail after they had carried out searches to confirm if information relating to the Request exists. This involved key word searches of Sharepoint Online and Microsoft Outlook as these would be the systems used to generate and share information on this subject. On 02.10.2024 it was confirmed that no information exists. Examples of key words used were ‘Vartry, ‘Vartry River, ‘Vartry Devil’s Glen’ and no information relevant to the request exists. I am satisfied on the basis of engagement with the staff detailed above that a reasonable search was conducted ”.
4. On 7 October 2024 the appellant requested an internal review of the decision, stating that:
“The attached record acquired under AIE from IFI clearly indicates the involvement of Coillte Nature in this project. The decision does not indicate that members of Coillte Nature were contacted to enquire as to what information they may hold ”.
5. On 8 November 2024 Coillte issued its internal review decision which varied the original decision, releasing one record alongside the provision of information on a number of meetings it deemed relevant to the scope of the request, stating:
“Point 1, 6(i) and 7
Maintenance works were carried out during July and August 2024, which entailed removal of cherry laurel, rail maintenance, vegetation removal, silt trap installation and the installation of a timber handrail. The following meetings were held in relation to these works :
• Meetings were held with the Inland Fisheries on the following dates 22 August 2024, 17th May 2024 and 24 April 2024.
• A meeting was held with the Forest Service inspector on 22 August 2024.
• A meeting was held on 7 August 2024 between Barry Coad (Forest Operations Manager) Fergal Caffrey (IFI), Declan Little (Ecologist, Coillte Nature) and Konrad Jay (Vartry Angling Club and Vartry Landowner).
• Following a complaint which was received by text message, stakeholder engagement took place on 26 July 2024 with a local stakeholder to explain the purpose of the works. I can confirm that the text message was deleted once the meeting with the stakeholder was arranged and no record exists.
One record was exported from the Business Resource Manager system, in relation to this maintenance operation, which is being released to you in full with this internal review decision.
Points 2-5, 6(ii), 8-10
I am refusing the information in relation to the remaining elements of the Request on the basis of Article 7(5) which provides that “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 ."
6. The appellant appealed to this Office on 18 November 2024.
7. I am 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’).
8. 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.
9. The scope of this appeal concerns whether Coillte was justified in refusing access to information requested under article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations and, in refusing access to unredacted information in records released to the appellant on the basis of articles 3(1) and 8(a)(i).
10. In response to the internal review decision, the appellant provided the following by way of submission:
“Point 1, 6(i) and 7
I must presume that the details in the written response are based on information available to Coillte. However, other than a single spreadsheet no environmental information held by or for Coillte has been provided and in effect the information has been refused with no reason provided .
Whilst comments can form a useful adjunct to the provision of requested information they should not be used by a public authority as an alternative to the provision of environmental information held by or for the authority .
I have appended a record releases by IFI (Record-23.pdf) which indicates that the development of this project was being considered by Coillte no later than November 2022, but Coillte have not even provided any written details to indicate this .
None of the details provided by Coillte pre-date the stakeholder complaint of 26-7-24 by which time works had been planned and undertaken .
Although Coillte allege that the text message complaint was deleted they have not indicated how they know that it existed in the first place .
_Coillte should clarify the date on which the message was deleted.
It is unclear which element of my request the single spreadsheet provided is supposed to represent_.
It does not meet, in full, Item 1, 6(i) or 7. It appears to relate more to financial information rather than the operational information requested .
Points 2-5, 6(ii), 8-10
When detailing search information, I contend that a public authority should indicate the following;
1. The parties identified to undertake searches
2. The reason why these parties were selected
3. What data sources were identified to be searched and why
4. Any data sources excluded from the searches and why
5. What search terms were used
6. What date range was applied
7. Whether searches were for full or partial matches
8. Whether searches of emails were just for the Subject Bar or included the message body
9. Whether searches of documents were just for the Title or included the body of the document
10. The number of results that the searches produced
11. How the results were filtered to identify information falling within the scope of the request
Coillte’s explanation of the searches undertaken is as follows ;
‘I have detailed below the steps taken to search for the information requested and have provided some information about the records management practices of Coillte, insofar as those practices relate to the requested category of information .
As part of the internal review process, I reviewed the search steps taken. The Request was assigned to the Estates Team in Business Area Unit 4. On 25 September 2024 and 2 October 2024 engagement took place with Coillte’s Estates Team Lead, Coillte’s Operations Manager and Coillte Nature’s Environmental and Technical Specialist to discuss the Request in detail . _Key word searches were carried of SharePoint Online and Microsoft Outlook, as these are the systems generally used to generate, store and share information on this topic. Examples of key words used were ‘Vartry’, ‘Vartry River’, ‘Vartry Devil’s Glen.’
Following these detailed enquiries outlined above, additional discussions were held with the relevant SME on 7 November 2024, I am satisfied that reasonable and adequate steps were taken to search for information in relation to points 2-5, 6(ii), 8-10 of the Request and it was confirmed that no information for these elements of the Request exists_.The basis on which Coillte has concluded that information sought does not exist is that this site is not a designated area, there are no instream works planned and the minor works were undertaken to an existing trail, therefore no AA screening was deemed necessary by local Coillte management .’
The explanation provided lacks the detail required to demonstrate that all reasonable steps have been taken to identify information falling within the scope of my request. Only Items 1, 3 and 5 from the list have been addressed .
I must presume that the text complaint was recorded on Coillte’s stakeholder log and this would fall within the scope of Item 10 of my request. The explanations given that no information exists lack any credibility .
The site lies within the Devils Glen pNHA. The works are a project and required formal screening under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive. The project area has direct hydrological connection to two Natura 2000 sites which have aquatic qualifying interests .
As road works within a forest the works also fall within the scope of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive. This was an upgrade to an existing road and therefore required development consent from DAFM ”.
11. In its submission to the OCEI, Coillte provided the following:
“For the OCEI’s consideration of the Appeal and its review of Coillte’s decision, we rely on the full meaning and effect of the IR Decision, except where otherwise stated herein. The central issues in the Appeal are as follows : -
a. Provision of Environmental Information. The Applicant contends that Coillte has not provided sufficient environmental information in response to items 1, 6(i) or 7 of the Request and furthermore, has not provided information in relation to the remainder of the Request.
b. Adequacy of Search Efforts. The Applicant challenges whether Coillte has undertaken reasonable and comprehensive steps to locate and disclose all relevant records.
Provision of Environmental Information
The Applicant is of the view that Coillte failed to provide relevant environmental information regarding meetings held in connection with the works. Coillte clarifies as follows:
a. The meeting in November 2022 focused on the general management of the site. No minutes were taken, and no emails exist.
b. Meetings with Inland Fisheries Ireland (IFI) took place on 24 April 2024, 17 May 2024, and 22 August 2024. The primary focus of these discussions was the habitat restoration project, with only brief mention of track opening. The records generated were strictly administrative, consisting solely of diary entries and scheduling emails, with no substantive documentation beyond these.
c. The meeting with the Forest Service inspector on 22 August 2024 was an on-site inspection, and no written records or emails were created as a result.
d. The meeting on 7 August 2024, involving representatives from Coillte, including Coillte Nature, IFI, and local stakeholders, resulted in an email sent by Declan Little on 26 August 2024 to Konrad Jay, summarising the Management Plan for the project. This is the only record available related to this meeting and is outside the scope of the Request, as it does not pertain to the specified works.
e. Following a stakeholder complaint received by the Operations Manager via text message (the “Stakeholder Complaint”) stakeholder engagement took place on 26 July 2024 to explain the purpose of the works. The text message was deleted following this engagement, prior to the AIE request. The precise date of deletion cannot be confirmed.
In respect of the nature of records provided to the Applicant, the spreadsheet released pertains to items 6(i) and 7 of the Request, specifically covering records of operations and the months during which works were undertaken. This was provided in full as part of the IR Decision.
Coillte has taken reasonable and adequate steps to locate and provide environmental information relevant to items 1, 6(i) and 7 of the Request. The absence of additional records is due to the nature of the meetings and engagements, which were largely informal and conducted via verbal discussions or on-site inspections.
The Applicant claims that notwithstanding the information provided in relation to items 1, 6(i) and 7 of the Request, the IR Decision refusing the remainder of the Request addresses only items 1, 3 and 5 of the Request. With specific reference to the Applicant’s comments in relation to item 10 of the Request (complaints and minutes to address same), Coillte highlights that the Stakeholder Compliant was not recorded on the stakeholder call log. This log serves as a support tool for relevant staff to assign and track issues at their discretion, and its use is not mandatory for all issues, therefore, Coillte invokes Article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations to justify its refusal of item 10 of the Request.
Coillte refutes the Applicant's assertion that the site lies within the Devil’s Glen Proposed Natural Heritage Area (pNHA) and has direct hydrological connections to two Natura 2000 sites with aquatic qualifying interests. Coillte confirms that while there is a hydrological connection to the Murrow Special Area of Conversation, its qualifying interests primarily relate to coastal habitats and vegetation, rather than aquatic species as suggested by the Applicant. Furthermore, the site in question does not lie within the pNHA; rather, it is adjoining but located downstream from the Devil’s Glen pNHA, which primarily relates to woodland habitats rather than aquatic ecosystems.
The Applicant also claims that the works in question fall within the scope of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive and require development consent from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (DAFM). Coillte also refutes this claim. The works carried out are exempted works, falling outside the DAFM statutory consent (forest licensing) process as defined by the Forestry Act, 2014 (No. 31 of 2014). The activities undertaken (light trail remedial works, which included minor scraping and levelling of the trail and installation of silt traps where required), occurred between May and July 2024 and were outside the pNHA. These works do not constitute significant road upgrades requiring formal development consent. Coillte rejects the suggestion that the works require additional statutory approval.
Coillte asserts that all reasonable steps were taken to locate records falling within the scope of the Request and invokes Article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations to justify its refusal of the remaining items of the Request.
Adequacy of Search Efforts
Coillte submits this response to demonstrate that all reasonable and adequate steps were undertaken to locate the information requested by the Applicant. This submission sets out the methodology employed and addresses the Applicant’s concerns regarding the comprehensiveness of the search.
The search process was conducted with direct engagement from the following key personnel who were the selected as they were directly involved in various works in Devil’s Glen, Wicklow during the specified timeframe and had the necessary expertise to identify relevant records: -
a. Estates Team Lead
b. Operations Manager
c. Environmental and Technical Specialist (Coillte Nature).
Coillte undertook searches across its systems used for document storage, communication, and operational record management, including, SharePoint Online, Microsoft Outlook and working knowledge of subject matter experts. No data sources were excluded from the searches. To ensure comprehensive coverage, the following search approach was applied:
i. Keywords used: "Vartry," "Vartry River," "Vartry Devil’s Glen."
ii. Date range applied: January 2024 to 6 September 2024 (the period during which works were carried out). While Coillte participated in a meeting in November 2022, no records exist from that meeting.
iii. Search scope: Included both full and partial matches.
iv. Emails searched: Both subject lines and message bodies were examined.
v. Documents searched: Both titles and content were reviewed.
The search process yielded two Business Resource Manager (BRM) records, both of which were provided in full to the Applicant with the IR Decision. As only two records were retrieved, filtering was unnecessary. Coillte asserts that all reasonable steps were taken to locate records falling within the scope of the request ”.
12. 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 ”.
13. 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 this 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.
14. 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 particular circumstances. In determining whether the steps taken are adequate in the circumstances, a standard of reasonableness is applied. What will be considered reasonable will vary from case to case.
15. In my analysis, I will first deal with the information requested under parts 2-5 and 6(ii) of the AIE request, that is:
2. Environmental Risk Assessment
3. Ecological Surveys
4. Screening under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive (including discussions in relation to the need for an Appropriate Assessment)
5. Assessment under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive
6. (ii) environmental monitoring.
16. Whilst Coillte provides descriptions of the searches it undertook with respect to the appeal as a whole, it further contends that information relating to parts 2-5 and 6(ii) does not exist because it does not consider the site to be within a Proposed Natural Heritage Area, refuting the appellant’s position that the land in question holds this classification.
17. It would appear reasonable to me that if a public authority asserts the view that it does not hold information pertaining to legislative and regulatory requirements as a direct result of its position that it was not obligated to act within these requirements, then it follows that this information does not exist.
18. While it is the appellant’s view that this information should exist, it is outside the remit of this Office to adjudicate on how public authorities carry out their functions generally, including with respect to their environmental information management practices. I have no role in assessing how public authorities collect, maintain and disseminate environmental information. My role concerns reviewing appeals of requests for access to environmental information within the scope of the request, which is held by or for the relevant public authority and no more than that.
19. The information Coillte have provided at internal decision stage and within its submission to this Office with respect to searches undertaken, combined with its position that the information does not exist as it was not legally necessary to produce, leads me to reasonably conclude that it has met its obligations under article 7(5).
20. Accordingly, I affirm Coillte’s decision with respect to parts 2-5 and 6(ii) of the internal review decision.
21. I will now turn to parts 1, 6(i), 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the request, that is:
(1) Meetings - internal and external
(6i) Operational records
(7) Date of works
(8) Relevant Correspondence, internal and external - all media
(9) Data collected on the Field Data Collector App
(10) Complaints and meetings to address the same
22. With respect to parts 1, 6(i) and 7, in the internal review decision Coillte varied the initial decision which noted no information was held by or for it and released one record pertaining to works conducted on the site in July and August 2024. It also provided summary information on a number of meetings held in relation to the work, to include a meeting following the receipt of a complaint, however it notes that no records exist with respect to this information.
23. It is the appellant’s position that further information relevant to his request should exist, with emphasis on the actions Coillte have outlined in paragraph 11 which detail specific events it details have occurred but simultaneously establishes that no records/no relevant records exist in relation to these events.
24. In considering the steps undertaken by Coillte to meet its obligations under article 7(5) of the Regulations, I first consider the steps taken at original decision and internal review decision stage. I note that, with the exception of the additional step of the discussion with a subject matter expert/subject matter experts on November 7th, 2024, no additional searches were carried out at internal review stage. This, despite the fact that at original decision stage Coillte contended that it held no information or records relevant to the request, subsequently identifying and releasing one record relating to parts 6(i) and 7, alongside details regarding six meetings between Coillte and various stakeholders, at internal review decision stage, pertaining to part 1 of the request.
25. I note that Coillte provides no further details of the discussions held at internal review decision stage, stating in the decision to the appellant that it met with ‘the relevant SME’ and stating in its submission to this Office that it met with ‘relevant subject matter experts’. It provides no information on the position or relevance of these SMEs, nor the nature of the discussions, further, while these discussions yielded information regarding 6 meetings, it does not detail how it established that no relevant records exist in relation to same and does not detail any subsequent digital, database or paper file searches carried out after it identified this relevant information.
26. That the Internal Review Officer was satisfied with the searches at original decision stage, to include databases searched and keywords used, notwithstanding the fact that these did not produce the subsequent information identified at internal review stage, lacks, in my view, the sufficient rigour required in meeting the obligations under article 7(5).
27. The view outlined above relates to all aspects of the request under discussion in this section (part 1, 6(i),7,8,9 and 10) however I find I must further highlight the lack of any detail provided by Coillte regarding part 9 of the request-data collected from the field collector app. That Coillte contends the site is not subject to an AA screening nor classifies it as a designated site, would not preclude there from potentially being information recorded on this application and the details outlined within Coillte’s submissions do not detail how this was considered.
28. During the course of the investigation, the appellant noted that he had received information by way of a separate AIE request with Coillte, which he contended came under the scope of this appeal and should have been shared accordingly. This record relates to work undertaken on the site at question, which was resourced through an ORIS funding application. This was shared with Coillte for further comment.
29. On 18 August 2025, Coillte returned a further submission following the sharing of the above information, releasing 4 records in full and one in partially redacted form, stating:
“Following receipt of that record, we broadened the scope of our searches. Using the keywords “ORIS ,” “ORIS funded_,” “Outdoor Recreation Infrastructure Scheme ,” and “Devil's Glen Oris Project ”in relation to the Vartry River in Devils Glen, Wicklow we identified five (5) additional records that are now being released to the Appellant . _The Outdoor Recreation Infrastructure Scheme (“ORIS ”) provided funding for improvement works to upgrade two existing trails, creating new walking routes in The Devil’s Glen, Wicklow_.This information is publicly available, as ORIS publishes summaries of projects funded under Measure 1 and Project Development Measure of the 2022 Outdoor Recreation Infrastructure Scheme on its website. Accordingly, Coillte is granting access to this record in an alternative manner pursuant to Article 7(3)(a)(ii) of the AIE Regulations, as the information is accessible via the link below .
The balance records are enclosed with this letter. For convenience, they are as follows:
1. Landlord’s Approval - email thread dated 19 May 2022
2. Establishment Activity Pack, 1 May 2024
3. Pack Maps
4. Hazard Identification Risk Assessment, 14 May 2024”.
30. Before addressing the redactions made to record 1 and Coillte’s contentions with respect to same, I will conclude my analysis on the search efforts obligated by article 7(5) with respect to parts 1, 6(i),7,8,9 and 10.
31. In my view while Coillte have provided some details regarding searches undertaken I am not satisfied that it has met its obligations with respect to article 7(5). Accordingly, it is my view that the most appropriate course of action to take is to annul Coillte’s decision under article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations and remit parts 1, 6(i), 7,8,9 and 10 of the request and direct it to undertake a fresh internal review decision on those aspects.
32. With respect to record 1, Coillte have redacted the name, email address and phone number of an Operations Manager within Coillte Forest and have contended firstly that the information does not come within the definition of environmental information set out in article 3(1) of the AIE Regulations and further, that notwithstanding this assertation, the information is also protected under article 8(1)(i) of the Regulations. This position has been submitted by Coillte in previous appeals and the Commissioner has adjudicated in published decision OCE-161017-J5W7L2 that staff names in a record otherwise accepted to contain environmental information, is information considered to meet the definition of article 3(1) and cannot be redacted, in cases where no other exemption is successfully applied.
33. Accordingly, as the environmental nature of the records is not under question here, I find that the information pertaining to staff names is environmental information under 3(1) of the Regulations.
34. With respect to the position contended by Coillte that the redacted information enjoys the protection of article 8(a)(i) this issue too has been considered and adjudicated in decision OCE-161017-J5W7L2. In my view the analysis concerning GDPR in that decision at paragraphs 46 to 66 is applicable also to this case. I agree with Coillte’s submission that the information is ‘personal information’. I am satisfied that the requester has a ‘legitimate interest’ in receiving the data pursuant to the request and that its disclosure is necessary to meet that interest. I also note that Coillte have confirmed the data subjects have not given consent to the disclosure of the information and, that the personal information at issue in this case does not fall under any of the special categories of personal data meriting higher protection.
35. It is necessary therefore to next consider the public interest balancing test, as noted in OCE-161017-J5W7L2 (paragraph 70) although as a matter of principle a public authority must carry out the balancing exercise in Article 6(1)(f) first and again (if needed) under article 10(3) of the AIE Regulations, in practice it is unnecessary for me to go through the exercise twice because in this decision as the analysis is the same.
36. In its public interest balancing test Coillte have contended that:
“Factors in favour of granting access to the Redacted Information include :
• Openness and transparency in operations and business ongoing at Coillte; and
• The widest possible systematic availability and dissemination to the public of environmental information.
Factors in favour of refusing access include :
• The fact that Article 8(a)(i) is a mandatory rather than discretionary ground of refusal; and
• The fact that disclosure of the Redacted Information would prejudice the privacy and confidentiality rights of those whose identities would be disclosed.
Coillte has determined that the factors in favour of disclosure are not outweighed by those in favour of refusing access. In particular, having regard to the fact that disclosure would set aside privacy and confidentiality rights, a particularly strong public interest in disclosure of the Redacted Information would be required. While there may be a public interest in disclosure of the record, as redacted, it is not apparent that there is a public interest in disclosure of the Redacted Information. It is not evident that there is a particularly strong public interest in knowing the identity of the parties to the emails which have been redacted .”
37. I have considered the individual data subjects’ interest in the protection of their personal data, taking into account the nature of the specific personal data at issue and the data subject’s rights under Articles 7 and 8 of The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. I have considered the nature of the information is question, namely information regarding a person’s employment. I consider this to be at the less sensitive end of the scale of personal information, given that such information is often freely made available by data subjects on the internet and elsewhere. In noting the specific information at issue here however [name, email address and phone number], I am of the view that the internal phone number or mobile number of a staff member should be considered separately to the staff members name and details of their employment. A internal phone number or mobile number is generally not intended for use by the public in contacting members of a public authority, as public authorities generally provide contact information for members of the public on their websites. In relation to email addresses, I consider it to be appropriate to consider this alongside a staff name, as generally email addresses follow a defined format and it will be possible to discern the email address from an individual’s name.
38. When considering individuals’ interest in the protection of their personal data, I have taken into account whether there is likely to be any adverse effect for the individuals or otherwise, if their data is released.
39. In favour of release, I consider that there is an important general interest in the disclosure of environmental information to meet the purpose of the AIE Directive, in particular by contributing 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, as set out in recital 1 to the AIE Directive, and the rights in Articles 11 and 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Right of the European Union. While Coillte have noted that “It is not evident that there is a particularly strong public interest in knowing the identity of the parties to the emails which have been redacted ” I note that the obligation is not on the appellant to contend a public interest in favour of disclosure, it is up to the public authority to advance contentions in favour of refusal, if in fact it is seeking to refuse access to information under article 10(3) and 10(4).
40. While Coillte contend that disclosure of the information would “prejudice the privacy and confidentiality rights of those whose identities would be disclosed ” they have not advanced arguments as to how the release of the information within the record identified would lead to an adverse outcome.
41. I note that the emails were exchanged in the course of work by an employee of Coillte and I consider that those of us working in the civil and public sector should identify ourselves, in the spirit of public sector values such as accessibility, transparency and integrity. While it may be the case that in some circumstances it is not appropriate for staff names or email addressed to be released through AIE, I am satisfied that this should only occur in exceptional circumstances. I am not persuaded that such circumstances are present in this case.
42. As noted above in paragraph 37, I do not consider that staff mobile or internal phone numbers can be considered on equal terms as staff names and email addresses. Given the purpose of such phone numbers, I consider that there is limited or no public interest in releasing phone numbers in circumstances where other avenues of communication with respect to access to information are open to the public.
43. Weighing the above interests in the balance, I conclude that the public interest in releasing the staff name and corresponding email address outweighs the interests served by the refusal. In considering the public interest in releasing the corresponding staff phone number, I am of the view that the public interest of disclosure does not outweigh the interest served by refusal.
44. I would emphasise that I consider each case that comes before me on its particular facts. It may be the case that particular circumstances may justify the redaction of staff names or email addresses from information released under AIE. However, I am not satisfied that this threshold has been reached in this particular case.
Having carried out a review under article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, I affirm parts 2-5 and 6(ii) of the decision and remit parts 1, 6(i), 7-10 of the request, and direct Coillte to carry out a fresh internal review regarding these aspects. I also direct release of the redacted information relating to the staff member’s name and email, released to the appellant in record 1.
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