Decision
Mr Y and Irish Rail
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-157489-H8C5R7 and OCE-157494-G7H0D7
Published on
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-157489-H8C5R7 and OCE-157494-G7H0D7
Published on
Whether Irish Rail has established that it did not hold any further information in accordance with article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations
3 December 2025
1. The appeals relate to two requests for information submitted to Irish Rail on 3 October 2024, by the same requester. As each request encompasses information relating to the same subject and one internal review decision was issued by Irish Rail it is considered appropriate to address both in one single decision.
2. On 3 October 2024, the appellant submitted a request to Irish Rail seeking access to the following: (AIE44)
1. “The EIA screening report and all surveys and reports informing the screening report for the Foynes to Limerick railway line refurbishment/ reopening project .
2.The AA screening report and all surveys and reports informing the screening report for the Foynes to Limerick railway line refurbishment/ reopening project .
3.The EIAR if produced and all surveys and reports informing the EIAR report for the Foynes to Limerick railway line refurbishment/ reopening project .
4.The NIS report and all surveys and reports informing the NIS report for the Foynes to Limerick railway line refurbishment/ reopening project including and subsequent revisions of the NIS and all surveys and reports stipulated in the NIS .
5.Any decision made by a competent person/authority in relation to the AA/EIA screening for AA stage 2 assessment / EIA assessment ”.
3. On 3 October 2024, the appellant submitted a second request to Irish Rail seeking access to the following: (AIE45)
“All records relating to the Limerick to Foynes railway reopening/ refurbishment including memos, minutes of meetings, attendance notes, external and internal correspondence, in writing or by email or by messaging app, communication software platform between
(a)Limerick County Council and Irish Rail/Iarnrod Eireann/CIE
(b)Department of Transport and Irish Rail/Iarnrod Eireann/CIE
(c)NPWS and Irish Rail/Iarnrod Eireann/CIE “.
4. On 23 October 2024, Irish Rail contacted the appellant and sought an extension until the 4 December 2024.
5. On 16 December 2024, Irish Rail informed the appellant that the two requests were not yet ready to be released. On 17 December 2024 the appellant requested Irish Rail provide a “comprehensive reason for the delay, a definite time frame for the provision of the information and a formal request for a time extension ”.
6. On 23 December 2024, Irish Rail informed the appellant delays had been caused due to the volume of the request and third-party involvement and stated, “We plan to have all material requested by the applicant collated, reviewed and issued by the end of January 2025 ”. Irish Rail requested an extension until 27 January 2025. The appellant contacted Irish Rail on the same date and agreed to an extension.
7. On 4 February 2025, the appellant requested an internal review as no decision had issued from Irish Rail and the requested records had not been provided. On 19 February 2025, the appellant again contacted Irish Rail seeking acknowledgment of his request for an internal review.
8. On 20 February 2025, Irish Rail issued an acknowledgment to the appellant for each AIE request and confirmed a final decision would issue by the 25 February 2025.
9. On 28 February 2025, Irish Rail requested a further extension from the appellant until the 11 March 2025.
10. On 3 March 2025, the appellant responded to Irish Rail informing them, “If the public authority fails to issue a decision within one month of my internal request date of the 3rd of February, it results in a deemed refusal. There is no possibility for me to grant an extension ”.
11. On 4 March 2025, Irish Rail issued its internal review decision. While the letter stated “_Re: AIE Internal Review Response [IE_AIE044 & 045] ”, the internal review only dealt with one AIE request, (AIE44). Irish Rail provided the appellant with a schedule of documents and confirmed all documents listed in the schedule would be forwarded to the appellant electronically.
12. On 5 March 2025, the appellant contacted Irish Rail and sought confirmation that the schedule of documents provided covered all records sought under the request. The appellant stated “Your AIE Internal Review Response letter does not mention AIE 045 other than in the heading and a schedule of documents has not been provided. Please provide the schedule of document for AIE 045. Can you confirm that all records pertaining to AIE 044 and AIE 045 will be provided before the end of this week ?”.
13. On 7 March 2025, Irish Rail informed the appellant they had “_yet to hear back regarding AIE045 ” and the documents relating to AIE 44 were being redacted and Irish Rail were working to have them to the appellant by the next week.
14. On 18 March 2025, the appellant appealed to my Office. On 16 May 2025, the appellant confirmed to this Office, he had received a schedule of documents and the associated records in relation to AIE45, on 9 May 2025, but believed that records were missing. The appellant confirmed that while a schedule of records had been provided for AIE44 on 4 March 2025, no actual documents had been provided. The appellant stated the schedule of documents was “not comprehensive and many documents have been omitted”.
15. On 20 May 2025, this Office requested Irish Rail to provide submissions detailing the steps taken to identify records.
16. On 22 May 2025, Irish Rail provided the appellant with records relating to AIE44.
17. On 10 June 2025, Irish Rail provided submissions to this Office which were subsequently provided to the Appellant. The appellant submitted further observations to this Office which were shared with Irish Rail and Irish Rail were invited to provide further submissions.
18. On 29 September 2025, Irish Rail provided the appellant with additional records in relation to both AIE requests but did not provide this Office with any additional details of the searches undertaken to identify these records.
19. On 7 October 2025, the appellant confirmed they had received these additional records but maintained that limited information had been received.
20. I am directed by the Commissioner to carry out a review under article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations. In carrying out my review, I have had regard to the submissions made by the appellant and the Irish Rail. 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’).
21. What follows does not comment or make findings on each and every argument advanced, but all relevant points have been considered.
22. I note the internal review decision which was issued by Irish Rail on 4 March 2025 referred to both AIE requests in the subject line, but the body of the internal review decision only dealt with the AIE request referenced as AIE44 and the appellant was never provided with an internal review decision in relation to his request, referenced as AIE45.
23. Irish Rail have relied on provisions under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act 2014 as a basis for redacting information in records which have been provided to the appellant. The AIE regime makes provisions for the use of exceptions and when a public authority seeks to redact information it is the exception under the AIE legislation which should be used.
24. In accordance with article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, my role is to review Irish Rail’s internal review decision and to affirm, annul or vary it. Where appropriate in the circumstances of an appeal, I will require Irish Rail to make available environmental information to the appellant.
25. The scope of this review is to determine whether Irish Rail were justified in refusing access to the requested material under article 7(5) of the AIE regulations.
26. 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 ”.
27. 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.
28. 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, among other things, provide evidence that it carried out adequate searches for the environmental information requested.
29. 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.
30. Irish Rail detailed the searches undertaken stating “The information requested is saved in project folders on the IE network, manual searches of the project folders and mirror SharePoint site yielded the records requested. All information is stored in soft copy ”. Irish Rail contend extensive manual searches were undertaken and keyword searches were conducted in relation to ‘Limerick County Council’, ‘Department of Transport’, ‘NPWS’, ‘Limerick’, ‘Foynes’, ‘EIA screening report’, ‘AA screening report’, ‘EIAR report’, ‘NIS report’, ‘AA stage 2 assessment’, and ‘EIA assessment’.
31. On 31 July 2025, a summary of the appellant’s views which outlined records he believed were missing was provided to Irish Rail and Irish Rail was invited to make further submissions. On 29 September 2025 Irish Rail provided the appellant with further records and a schedule of documents in relation to each of his requests.
32. I note that Irish Rail provided the appellant with 39 records in relation to his request refenced as AIE44 on the 22 May 2025 with one additional record being provided to the appellant on 29 September 2025. With regards to AIE45 Irish Rail provided the appellant with 8 records on the 9 May 2025 and an additional 21 records on the 29 September 2025. While Irish Rail provided a schedule of records they failed to provide this Office with details of the additional searches that had been undertaken to identify these further records. The appellant still contends limited information has been provided and in the absence of the steps taken by Irish Rail to identify these additional records it is not possible to make a determination on this.
33. Irish Rail should note that the duty to give reasons, which arises not only by virtue of the AIE Regulations and Directive but is recognised generally as a core principle of administrative law and a fundamental element of constitutional justice (see, for example, Meadows v Minister for Justice [2010] IESC 3 and Balz & Anor v An Bord Pleanála & Ors [2019] IESC 90). Both judgments, in the same way as the AIE Regulations, make it clear that where a requester has all or part of a request refused, they are entitled to be provided with clear reasons for that refusal. This duty arises so that the requester can take a view as to whether they consider refusal justified, or whether they wish to exercise their entitlement to have the refusal reviewed. Where a public authority refuses a request on the basis that it does not hold information within the scope of that request, it should be in a position to set out clearly, the steps it has taken to identify and retrieve relevant information.
34. Accordingly, it is my view that the most appropriate course of action to take in this case is to remit the matter to Irish Rail for a fresh decision-making process to be carried out. Irish Rail should issue a new internal review decision for each request setting out in detail the searches undertaken.
35. While it would have been open to me to seek further submissions from Irish Rail in respect of this case, I consider that it would lead to a more efficient processing of the request if the appeal was remitted back to Irish Rail, rather than additional submissions being sought at this stage. I am satisfied that the AIE regime is best served by remitting the case back to Irish Rail in this instance.
36. If further searches identify information within the scope of the appellant’s request, then a decision on disclosure should be reached in accordance with the provisions of the AIE Regulations. If it is the case that, having taken reasonable and adequate steps to identify and retrieve information within the scope of the request, Irish Rail remains of the view that no relevant information is held by or for it, it should advise the appellant of this and set out the steps taken by it in conducting those searches.
37. Having carried out a review under article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, I annul Irish Rail’s decision and direct it to provide the appellant with a new internal review decision for each AIE request.
38. 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