Cinneadh
Mr. X and Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine
Ó Oifig an Choimisinéara um Fhaisnéis Comhshaoil
Cásuimhir: OCE-164189-B1T2Y2
Foilsithe
Teanga: Níl leagan Gaeilge den mhír seo ar fáil.
Ó Oifig an Choimisinéara um Fhaisnéis Comhshaoil
Cásuimhir: OCE-164189-B1T2Y2
Foilsithe
Teanga: Níl leagan Gaeilge den mhír seo ar fáil.
Whether the Department has established that it did not hold information coming within the scope of the appellant’s request, in accordance with article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations
30 January 2026
1. On 18 August 2025, the appellant submitted a request to the Department seeking access to the following:
“Information on whether the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine has issued a herd number for pigs registered to the farm located at Rathiddy, Knockbridge, Co. Louth, A91 P8RC. In particular, the building marked as O in the attachment which is located on the farm of the above address (Eircode belongs to building A in attachment).
If a herd number has been issued please provide:
1. The date of registration
2. The type of herd number issued
3. Any conditions or restrictions attached to that registration”.
2. On 9 September 2025, the Department issued its decision refusing the request as they had been unable to locate any records relevant to the request. On the same date the appellant sought clarification from the Department requesting:
“Could you please confirm the following:
1. That no pig herd number registration currently exists or has existed relevant to the farm at Rathiddy, Knockbridge, Co. Louth, A91 P8RC
2. That no details of such a registration (e.g. date of issue, type of herd number, conditions/restrictions) are held by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine.
3. That the refusal of my request is therefore based on the non-existence of such records, rather than on an exemption or other restriction under the AIE regulations”.
3. On 11 September 2025, the Department corresponded with the appellant and confirmed based on the searches conducted they had been unable to find any details of any registration relevant to the information provided. The Department stated they were“unable to state categorically that none exists”. The Department confirmed the request was refused as no records existed rather than on an exception under the AIE regulations.
4. On 12 September 2025, the appellant sought an internal review of the Department’s decision. The appellant stated:
“I request that the review address the following points:
1. Confirmation of whether the conclusion that no pig herd number registration exists in relation to the farm at Rathiddy, Knockbridge, Co. Louth, A91 P8RC, is based on a comprehensive search of all relevant records and databases held by the Department.
2. A detailed explanation of the manner in which the search was carried out, specifically:
• The systems/databases that were searched,
• The search terms and key words used,
• The approach taken in conducting the search (e.g. by address, herd number, applicant/owner name, etc.),
• Whether archived or historical records were included in the search,
• Any limitations to the search that should be noted.
3.Clarification as to whether the Department can confirm, based on the outcome of the searches, that no pig herd registration is or has been in existence for the farm in question.”
5. On 10 October 2025, the Department issued its internal review decision and in doing so affirmed the original decision. The Department stated:
“I can also confirm that all applications received for the last 3 years have been checked. The VI with responsibility for the area has no information. And also electronic files, electronic systems and files have been searched using the following search terms: Address, Eircode and Wildcard”.
6. On 21 October 2025, the appellant contacted the Department and stated:
“Could you please clarify the rationale for limiting the search to a three-year period, as I understand the AIE Regulations 2007–2018 contain no temporal restriction on the records to be considered?
Given that herd-number and registration records may exist in older archives or pre-digital systems, I would be grateful if you could extend the search to include all available historical records relevant to the Rathiddy site (including any herd-number applications or registrations prior to 2022)”.
7. The appellant received no response and on 3 November 2025 requested a response from the Department. The appellant received no reply.
8. On 4 November 2025, the appellant appealed to my Office.
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 DAFM. 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.
12. The scope of this review is to determine whether the Department was justified in refusing access to the requested material under article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations on the grounds that no information relevant to the request is held by the Department.
13. 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”.
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.
15. 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.
16. Article 7(5) of the AIE regulations allows 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.
17. In this case the appellant contends the Department restricted the search to the last three years and is seeking“all available historical records relevant to the Rathiddy site (including any herd-number applications or registrations prior to 2022)”.
18. The Department submits based on the searches conducted that it does not hold the requested information. The Department detailed,“searches of paper files within the Navan RVO; searches of the Departments electronic systems; retrieval from archive of files that may be relevant; and a request for all relevant personnel for local knowledge and to search their email and other files” . The Department confirmed their systems did not contain any details of a pig registration number for the requested address.
19. The Department also searched for electronic records on two systems, Customer Client Management System (CCM) and Animal Disease Management System (ADMS), using the name, address and Eircode provided by the appellant. These searches did not return any result. The Department confirmed,“These systems were first initiated in the Department in 2000-2004, earlier records were assimilated into these systems. It is not possible to view earlier records electronically” .
20. The Department detailed searches of physical records stating,“we also did a thorough search of all physical herd registration files, for all applications that are held in the office and on a Microsoft Excel based list. These are the files for all applications received within the last three years. This search did not find any files relating to the name, address, or Eircode. When the three-year period concludes, paper files are sent to storage by the team and stored by herd number” . The Department also conducted searches of archived files, and no records were found for the requested address.
21. The Department stated in the internal review“I can also confirm that all applications received for the last 3 years have been checked”, and this led the appellant to believe the searches conducted by the Department were limited to the last three years. The Department have clarified the applications for the last 3 years are stored in an office and after this period are moved to storage and these archived files have also been checked.
22. It is important to note that where a public authority refuses a request for records under article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations, the question this Office must consider is whether the public authority has taken all reasonable steps to ascertain the whereabouts of relevant records. The Regulations do not require absolute certainty as to the existence or location of records, as situations arise where records are lost or simply cannot be found, or, indeed, may have been destroyed in line with the body’s records management policies. The passage of time is also relevant factor in such appeals. It is also important to note that the Commissioner does not generally expect public authorities to carry out extensive or indefinite general searches for records simply because an applicant asserts that more records should or might exist, or rejects a public authorities explanation of why a record does not exist. The test set out in article 7 (5) of the AIE Regulations is whether the public authority has taken all reasonable steps to locate the record(s) sought.
23. I hold the view that the searches conducted by the Department were appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances. I am satisfied that the Department has taken sufficient steps to determine that it does not hold environmental information relevant to the appellant’s request and accordingly was justified in refusing the request based on article 7 (5) of the AIE regulations.
24. Having carried out a review under article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, I affirm the Department’s decision.
25. 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