Cinneadh
Ms H and Longford County Council
Ó Oifig an Choimisinéara um Fhaisnéis Comhshaoil
Cásuimhir: OCE-159734-Y9M2L6
Foilsithe
Teanga: Níl leagan Gaeilge den mhír seo ar fáil.
Ó Oifig an Choimisinéara um Fhaisnéis Comhshaoil
Cásuimhir: OCE-159734-Y9M2L6
Foilsithe
Teanga: Níl leagan Gaeilge den mhír seo ar fáil.
Whether the Council conducted adequate searches such as to identify all information relevant to the appeal, in accordance with the requirements of article 7(5)
11 September 2025
1. On 22 November 2024, the appellant submitted a request to the Council seeking access to“all environmental records held regarding Shantobar Estate Ballinalee between years 2017 to 2024 other than those previously provided to me under AIE 2024(7) and OCE-132005- T6H0N5”.
2. On 19 December 2024, the Council informed the appellant the request was refused under Article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations as the Council had been unable to locate any additional records relevant to the request that had not previously been provided to the appellant.
3. On 14 January 2025, the appellant requested an internal review of the Council’s decision.
4. On 12 February 2025, the Council issued its internal review decision. In doing so, it affirmed its original decision and stated,“a thorough search has been conducted by all relevant personnel, and all relevant records have been considered for release or already released to you through your numerous other requests”.
5. On 23 June 2025, the appellant appealed to my Office.
6. 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 Council. 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’).
7. What follows does not comment or make findings on each and every argument advanced but all relevant points have been considered.
8. In accordance with article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, my role is to review the Council’s internal review decision and to affirm, annul or vary it. Where appropriate in the circumstances of an appeal, I will require the Council to make available environmental information to the appellant.
9. The appellant had submitted a number of previous requests to the Council for substantially the same material. The appellant has placed records which have already been provided outside the scope of her request.
10. On 3 May 2022, the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) published a decision in relation to OIC-109749-N1W4Q5 , which is available on the website of the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC), www.oic.ie .
11. On 19 October 2023, this Office published a decision in relation to OCE-132005-T6H0N5 which is available on our website, www.ocei.ie .
12. The scope of this review is therefore to determine whether the Council were justified in refusing access to the requested material under article 7(5) of the AIE regulations on the grounds that all records have already been provided to the appellant.
13. In this case, the appellant contends the Council should hold further information relevant to her request. 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. 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.
15. 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.
16. The Council have relied on their internal review decision which detailed the searches undertaken;
• Roads Complaints systems
• All Roads Staff Emails
• All Roads Network Files
• All records for Shantobar Estate
• Work Diaries for relevant staff
• Follow up with all staff who held records on numerous occasions for each of the AIEs/FOIS/DSAR Requests and for specific information request
• All Email Records for the appellant/Shantobar Estate
• All Network Files for the appellant/Shantobar Estate
• Insurance File for the appellant
• Follow up with all staff who held records on numerous occasions for each of the AIEs/FOIS/DSAR Requests and for specific information requests
• Complaints System,
• All Email records for the appellant/Shantobar
• All Network Records for the appellant/Shantobar
• Follow up with all staff who held records on numerous occasions for each of the AIEs/FOIS/DSAR Requests and for specific information requests
• Taking in charge file Shantobar
• Email Correspondence
• Network Correspondence
• Email Correspondence
• Network Correspondence
• Complaints System
• Email Correspondence
• Network Correspondence
• Work History
17. The Council have stated;
“Excluding all data provided under AIE 2024 (7) and OCE-132005-T6HON5 (which was agreed with you and the Deciding Officer, need not be re-furnished) and further examining the points made in your letter of appeal, and follow up email of 7th February 2025, it is my conclusion that as per Article 7, Sub Article 5 of the European Communities (Access to information on the Environment Regulations) 2007, no further records exist, and therefore cannot be released”.
18. The appellant contends that further records should exist and highlighted inconsistencies and gaps in the records already provided. Specifically, she questioned the accuracy and completeness of certain records such as ‘record 17’ and ‘record 7’, suggesting they appeared incomplete and misleading. The appellant contends the record numbering system suggests additional records may exist and noted some records were only in paper form without a digital entry, raising concerns about the thoroughness and consistency of the Council’s search.
19. The appellant has expressed concerns about record accuracy and inconsistencies in the records provided. While I note those concerns, this Office has no role in assessing how public authorities collect, maintain and disseminate environmental information. The role of this Office concerns reviewing appeals of requests for access to environmental information within the scope of a request, which is held by or for the relevant public authority and no more than that.
20. It is important to note that where a public authority refuses a request for records under section 7(5) of the AIE regulations, the question we 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. It is also important to note that we do not generally expect public authorities to carry out extensive or indefinite general searches for records simply because an appellant asserts that more records should or might exist or rejects a public authorities explanation of why a record does not exist. The test in section 7(5) is whether the public authority has taken all reasonable steps to locate the record sought.
21. While the appellant makes a case that some records may be missing and some records incomplete, I must assess whether the Council has taken all reasonable steps to identify the information it does have. Given the detail of the searches conducted by the Council and the information already provided by the Council through previous requests for substantially the same information I am satisfied the Council have taken reasonable steps to identify all relevant information.
22. Having carried out a review under article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, on behalf of the Commissioner for Environmental Information, I affirm the decision of the Council under article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations.
23. 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