Ó Oifig an Choimisinéara um Fhaisnéis Comhshaoil
Cásuimhir: OCE-155029-Y5Z0J3
Foilsithe
Teanga: Níl leagan Gaeilge den mhír seo ar fáil.
Whether the Department was justified, under article 9(2)(c) of the AIE Regulations, in refusing access to copies of all submissions on the review of the National Planning Framework (NPF).
27 February 2025
1. On 5 November 2024, the appellant submitted a request to the Department seeking access to “electronic copies of all the submissions on the review of the NPF, both public submissions and public sector submissions.” On 4 December 2024, the Department issued its decision, refusing the appellant’s request in full under article 9(2)(c) of the AIE Regulations.
2. Also on 4 December 2024, the appellant sought an internal review of the Department’s decision. The appellant stated “[t]he submissions ‘are not in the course of completion’ regardless of whether the NPF has yet to be approved.” On 3 January 2025, the Department issued its internal review decision, affirming its original decision to refuse access under article 9(2)(c) of the AIE regulations.
3. On 6 January 2025, the appellant submitted an appeal to this Office.
4. I am directed by the Commissioner to carry out a review under article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations. In so doing, I have had regard to the correspondence between the Department and the appellant, as outlined above, and to the submissions and evidence provided to this Office by both the Department and the appellant on the matter. 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)
5. What follows does not comment or make findings on each and every argument advanced but all relevant points have been considered.
6. 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.
7. During the course of this review, the Investigator wrote to the appellant, noting that no decision had yet been made by this Office. She asked for clarification as to whether he was seeking access to personal details or whether personal details could be excluded from the scope of this appeal, such as those redacted by the Department in publishing submissions on a previous consultation related to the NPF, see here: https://www.npf.ie/submissions-predraft/ (e.g. individual email addresses, telephone numbers, specific individual addresses etc). In response, the appellant stated “I am not necessarily looking for personal details other than the name of the person.” In the circumstances, I am satisfied that personal details that would generally be redacted by the Department when publishing submissions received in response to a public consultation fall outside the scope of this review. This does not preclude the appellant from making a subsequent request to the Department for such information, should he wish to do so.
8. This review is concerned with whether the Department was justified, under article 9(2)(c) of the AIE Regulations, in refusing access to submissions received on the national public consultation on the draft revised NPF (i.e. the review of the NPF).
9. The Department is refusing access to the submissions sought under articles 9(2)(c) of the AIE Regulations. During the course of the review, this Office asked the Department to provide copies of the submissions concerned. In response, the Department did not provide copies of the submissions, however it did provide a schedule which indicated that 272 records had been identified as relevant to the appellant’s request.
10. Article 9(2)(c) of the AIE Regulations provides that a public authority may refuse to make environmental information available where the request concerns material in the course of completion, or unfinished documents or data. This provision transposes Article 4(1)(d) of the AIE Directive, which in turn is based on part of Article 4(3)(c) of the Aarhus Convention. This exemption is not harm-based. It is not necessary for the public authority to show that there is any adverse effect in respect of the release of the information at issue to engage the exception, just that the information concerns material in the course of completion, or unfinished documents or data, although, as noted below, there is still a requirement to then consider the public interest.
11. Article 9(2)(c) of the AIE Regulations must be read alongside article 10 of the AIE Regulations. Article 10(3) of the AIE Regulations requires a public authority to consider each request on an individual basis and weigh the public interest served by disclosure against the interest served by refusal. Article 10(4) of the AIE Regulations provides that the grounds for refusal of a request shall be interpreted on a restrictive basis having regard to the public interest served by disclosure. Article 10(5) of the AIE Regulations provides that nothing in article 8 or 9 shall authorise a public authority not to make available environmental information which, although held with information to which article 8 or 9 relates, may be separated from such information. Article 10(6) of the AIE Regulations states that where a request is refused pursuant to article 9(2)(c) because it concerns material in the course of completion, the public authority shall inform the applicant of the name of the authority preparing the material and the estimated time needed for completion.
12. Articles 7(4) and 11(4) of the AIE Regulations require public authorities to provide reasons for refusal at both original and internal review decision stages, consistent with Article 4(5) of the AIE Directive. In this regard, the High Court in Right to Know v An Taoiseach [2018] IEHC 372 noted, in particular, that “in light of the adjudicatory processes in which a decision-maker is required to engage pursuant to Articles 10(3), (4) and (5) and 11(4) of the AIE Regulations, the mere invoking of the statutory ground upon which disclosure of environmental information may be exempted cannot, to my mind, constitute a sufficient reason for the refusal” (paragraph 106). The Court held that in an absence of any indicator in the review decision that the balancing exercise mandated by articles 10(3) and (4) had been carried out, suggested that no balancing exercise had, in fact, been undertaken and that the same was true in respect of the mandatory obligation set out in article 10(5) of the AIE Regulations (paragraph 87).
13. When relying on article 9(2)(c) of the AIE Regulations, the public authority should explain why the information at issue falls within the scope of the exception, outlining which limb(s) of the exception is being relied upon. It is then for the public authority to weigh the public interest served by disclosure against the interest served by the refusal as is required by articles 10(3) and 10(4). I note the comments of the CJEU in Case C-619/19, Land Baden-Württemberg v DR (Land Baden-Württemberg):
“…[A] public authority which adopts a decision refusing access to environmental information must set out the reasons why it considers that the disclosure of that information could specifically and actually undermine the interest protected by the exceptions relied upon. The risk of that interest being undermined must be reasonably foreseeable and not purely hypothetical.” (paragraph 69)
14. The terms “material in the course of completion” and “unfinished documents or data” are not defined in the AIE Regulations, AIE Directive, or the Aarhus Convention. However, the decisions of the CJEU in Land Baden-Württemberg, and Case C-234/22, Roheline Kogukond MTÜ and Others v Keskkonnaagentuur (Roheline Kogukond MTÜ), provide some guidance on the exception.
15. While Land Baden-Württemberg more specifically concerned the internal communications exception (discussed in further detail below), the Court indicated that both the internal communications exception and the exception concerning material in the course of completion and unfinished documents or data are “intended to meet the need of public authorities to have a protected space in order to engage in reflection and to pursue internal discussions” (see paragraph 44).
16. In Roheline Kogukond MTÜ, which dealt with the question as to whether data on the location of permanent sample plots for a statistical forest inventory were to be classified as material in the course of completion or unfinished documents or data, the Court referred to the decision in Land Baden-Württemberg. In considering the material in the course of completion and unfinished documents or data exception, it noted at paragraphs 37 to 41:
“The referring court asks, in the first place, whether disclosure of the coordinates for the location of the permanent sample plots used for the periodic collection of data with a view to drawing up a national statistical forest inventory may be refused on the basis of point (d) of the first subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Directive 2003/4, which allows Member States to refuse a request for environmental information relating to documents in the course of completion or to unfinished documents or data.
Although the concepts of ‘material in the course of completion’ and ‘unfinished documents or data’ are not defined by [the AIE Directive], it is apparent from the explanations relating to Article 4 of the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on public access to environmental information presented by the Commission on 29 June 2000 (COM(2000) 402 final) (OJ 2000 C 337 E, p. 156) that the purpose of that exception is to meet the need of the public authorities to have a protected space in which to pursue internal considerations and debates (see, to that effect, judgment of 20 January 2021, Land Baden-Württemberg (Internal communications), C-619/19, EU:C:2021:35, paragraph 44). The Court has also held that, unlike the ground for refusing access provided for in point (e) of the first subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Directive 2003/4 relating to internal communications, that provided for in point (d) of the first subparagraph of Article 4(1) of the directive relates to the preparation or drafting of documents and is therefore of a temporary nature (see, to that effect, judgment of 20 January 2021, Land Baden-Württemberg (Internal communications), C-619/19, EU:C:2021:35, paragraph 56).
That interpretation is corroborated by that of Article 4(3)(c) of the Aarhus Convention, which provides for an exception to the right of access to environmental information in relation to documents in the course of completion, and by the explanations contained in the document entitled The Aarhus Convention: An implementation guide (second edition, 2014) published by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, which, although it has no normative value, is one of the elements that may guide the interpretation of that convention (see, to that effect, judgment of 16 February 2012, Solvay and Others, C-182/10, EU:C:2012:82, paragraph 27).
The location coordinates of permanent sample plots used for the collection of data for drawing up a national statistical forest inventory cannot be regarded as documents in the course of completion or as unfinished documents or data when they relate to the state of the forest on a given date.
The fact that those sample plots are used to measure developments in the state of forest resources and soils in successive statistical forest inventories or other reports does not call that conclusion into question. To interpret it otherwise would be tantamount to allowing the exception provided for in point (d) of the first subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Directive 2003/4 to be applied without any time limit, even though that exception is, as has been pointed out above, of a temporary nature.”
17. As indicated above, the first question to be addressed is whether or not article 9(2)(c) of the AIE Regulations is engaged on the basis that the information at issue “concerns material in the course of completion, or unfinished documents or data” (i.e. which limb(s) of the exemption is being relied upon).
18. It is this Office’s view that “material in the course of completion” relates to the process of preparing information/documents. The Aarhus Guide states that “the expression ‘in the course of completion’ relates to the process of preparation of the information or the document and not to any decision-making process for the purpose of which the given information or document has been prepared.” However, this Office considers that the factual circumstance of each case is relevant to assess and considers that this exemption may apply in two ways, firstly to information that is itself in the course of completion or unfinished, but secondly to information that while not itself material in the course of completion or unfinished, sufficiently concerns the material in the course of completion or unfinished information.
19. The Aarhus Guide also includes the following commentary:
A request for access to raw environmental data cannot be refused on the grounds that it is “material in the course of completion” to be made publicly available only after processing or correction factors have been applied. In its findings on ACCC/C/2010/53 (United Kingdom), the Committee considered whether raw air pollution data collected from a monitoring station and not yet subject to data correction could be exempted from disclosure as “material in the course of completion”. The Committee considered that the raw data was itself environmental information within the meaning of article 2, paragraph 3 (a), of the Convention. […]
Similarly, the mere status of something as a draft alone does not automatically bring it under the exception. The words “in the course of completion” suggest that the term refers to individual documents that are actively being worked on by the public authority. Once those documents are no longer in the “course of completion” they may be released, even if they are still unfinished and even if the decision to which they pertain has not yet been resolved. “In the course of completion” suggests that the document will have more work done on it within some reasonable time frame. Other articles of the Convention also give some guidance as to how Parties might interpret “in the course of completion”. Articles 6, 7 and 8 concerning public participation require certain draft documents to be accessible for public review. Thus, drafts of documents such as permits, EIAs, policies, programmes, plans and executive regulations that are open for comment under the Convention would not be “materials in the course of completion” under this exception.
20. I consider that the purpose of this exemption is to give public authorities time and private space to draft and amend documents that they are preparing before they are finalised. The European Commission acknowledged this interest in its First Proposal for the AIE Directive, as did the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C 619/19 Land Baden-Württemberg v. D.R. at paragraph 44. I emphasise that this interest is in maintaining the confidentiality of draft documents while they are still being actively worked on, rather than in maintaining the confidentiality of completed documents pending the conclusion of decision-making process.
21. In Roheline Kogukond MTÜ, the information at issue concerned location coordinates of permanent sample plots used to draw up the Estonian statistical forest inventory. The CJEU noted that “the permanent sample plots, the location coordinates of which are requested…, are sampling units used for the periodic collection of data with a view to drawing up, by extrapolation, statistical reports on forest stands in Estonia and on land use and development. Those sample plots are located on the sides of 64- hectare square plots, chosen for their representative nature of the state of the forest and soils.” The CJEU held that “[t]he location coordinates of permanent sample plots used for the collection of data for drawing up a national statistical forest inventory cannot be regarded as documents in the course of completion or as unfinished documents or data when they relate to the state of the forest on a given date. It noted that “the fact that those sample plots are used to measure developments in the state of forest resources and soils in successive statistical forest inventories or other reports does not call that conclusion into question. To interpret it otherwise would be tantamount to allowing the exception…to be applied without any time limit, even though that exception is…of a temporary nature.”
22. Advocate General Kokott in her Opinion commented “the data on the location of the permanent sample plots of the statistical forest inventory are already available in full and therefore do not fall into any of the three categories [provided for in the exception]” (paragraph 60). She further stated, at paragraphs 61 to 64:
“The fact that the data on the location of the permanent sample plots of the statistical forest inventory are to be used to regularly produce further reports on the state of the forests does not change that. Those reports and the information collected therein may at certain times fall under the abovementioned categories of cases and thus within the exception pursuant to Article 4(1)(d) of the Environmental Information Directive. However, that does not mean that the location data may be withheld. While they are explicitly or implicitly part of the reports, they are significant in their own right regardless of the individual reports, which may not yet have been completed. That is also demonstrated by the fact that those location data not only form the basis of reports that are still being processed, but – as the Environment Agency acknowledges – also form the basis of reports that have already been completed in the past.
The above considerations on the possibly limited interest of the public in the disclosure of the location data do not change the conclusion. They do not change the fact that the location data are part of operations that have already been completed.
It would be contrary to the temporary nature of that exemption to apply it indefinitely to certain data by reason of the repeated use of that data, even though the data has already been definitively established. Rather, the exception is intended to apply only during a specific period, that is to say during the processing of materials, documents and data. The idea of a time-limited application of that exception is confirmed by the second subparagraph of Article 4(1) of the Environmental Information Directive, according to which a refusal to disclose material that is in the process of being completed must already indicate when the material is expected to be complete.
Therefore, data on the location of the permanent sample plots of a regularly repeated statistical forest inventory do not constitute material in the process of being completed, nor are they documents which have not yet been completed or data which have not yet been processed for the purposes of Article 4(1)(d) of the Environmental Information Directive.”
23. I wish to reiterate that the particular factual scenario in each individual case must be considered and, in addition to the specific information at issue, is a key factor in assessing the application of article 9(2)(c) of the AIE Regulations. Cases are often distinguished on their facts.
24. As stated above, I am satisfied that article 9(2)(c) of the AIE Regulations can be relied upon in circumstances both where the information itself is, for example, “material in the course of completion” or “unfinished data”, and where the information concerns “material in the course of completion” or “unfinished data”.
25. I consider that “material in the course of completion” refers to the process of preparing “material” that is itself being actively worked on (just because something is labelled “draft” does not necessarily mean it is “in the course of completion”). However, while information no longer being actively worked on may not itself be “material in the course of completion” it may concern material in the course of completion. In assessing whether the information at issue concerns “material in the course of completion”, I am of the view that it is necessary to identify material that is actively being worked upon, be able to explain why, and how, the information at issue concerns that material, and consider whether the information at issue is a separate and independent piece of work to that material – if the information at issue is a separate and independent piece of work, the exception will not be applicable. I also consider that the material that is actively being worked upon must have a physical existence (it cannot be something that does not have a physical existence (e.g. a project, exercise or process, although it can be part of same). For example, an overarching project, even if it is not complete, cannot be considered to be “material in the course of completion”, however individual documents that form part of the project might be if they have not yet been completed.
26. I consider that “unfinished documents” are documents that a public authority is still working on (just because something is labelled “draft” does not necessarily mean it is “unfinished”) and “unfinished data” is data that a public authority is still collecting at the time of the decision. Again, in assessing whether the information at issue concerns “unfinished documents” or “unfinished data”, I am of the view that it is necessary to identify the document being worked on / data that is actively being collected, be able to explain why, and how, the information at issue concerns that document/data, and consider whether the information at issue is a separate and independent piece of work to that document/data – if the information at issue is a separate and independent piece of work, the exception will not be applicable. Whether documents/data can be considered to be unfinished depends on the circumstances. I consider that data which is part of routine monitoring or collected raw data being used as part of ongoing research or policy development, even if it has not been analysed or validated, may not generally be regarded as part of ongoing unfinished data collection.
27. The Department, in its original decision relying on article 9(2)(c) of the AIE Regulations to refuse access to the submissions at issue stated:
“… the information cannot be released to you as the submissions made during the consultation period of the First Revision of the National Planning Framework in accordance with Article 9 (2)(c) of the AIE Regulations. Article 9 (2)(c) of the AIE Regulations states the following: A public authority may refuse to make environmental information available where the request— (c) concerns material in the course of completion, or unfinished documents or data.
In order to finalise the First Revision of the National Planning Framework, Government will, in due course, be required to approve a final Revised NPF following the conclusion of the environmental assessments, which will include a Strategic Environmental Assessment; Natura Impact Statement and Appropriate Assessment Determination, and a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment.
The final draft of the Revised National Planning Framework will also require the approval by the Houses of the Oireachtas before it is published.
Copies of all submissions made on the Draft First Revision to the National Planning Framework will be made thereafter.”
28. In its internal review decision, the Department reiterated its position that article 9(2)(c) of the AIE Regulations applied and commented:
“The records you have requested, public submissions and public sector submissions, are part of the national public consultation on the draft revised NPF ran from 10th July 2024 to 12th September 2024. These records are currently being reviewed and analyised as part of the on-going First revision to the National Planning Framework and so are considered to be part of this incomplete work.
In order to finalise the First Revision of the National Planning Framework, Government will, in due course, be required, in accordance with section 20 (c) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, to approve a final Revised NPF following the conclusion of the environmental assessments, which will include a Strategic Environmental Assessment, Natura Impact Statement and Appropriate Assessment Determination, and a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment. When the First Revision of the National Planning Framework is finalised and approved by Government and the Houses of the Oireachtas this Department will publish the public submissions.”
29. The Department, in submissions to this Office, reiterated its position as set out in its internal review decision and stated:
“On 5th November 2024, Government agreed to progress and publish a draft schedule of amendments to the Draft First Revision to the NPF arising from the public consultation process. In accordance with section 20C of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended (The Act), in order to finalise the First Revision of the NPF, Government will in due course be required to approve a final Revised NPF following the conclusion of the environmental assessments, which will include a Strategic Environmental Assessment; Natura Impact Statement and Appropriate Assessment Determination, and a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment. The decision of Government will be informed by the aforementioned documentation which will also include the report on the submissions received. The consideration of the submissions remains a matter for Government in the course of the approval of the finalised Revised NPF.
Following the approval of Government, the final draft will then be submitted to the Houses of the Oireachtas for ultimate approval (Section 20C(8) of the Act refers). The current legal status of the revision process for the NPF is that it remains ongoing until such a time as it is concluded in line with the provisions of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 (as amended).
If these submissions were to be released at this juncture, ahead of the Government formally considering same in the context of a decision to approve a finalised revised NPF as is required by legislation, it is the view of this Department that their release would:
(a) contaminate the decision making process; and (b) impair the integrity and viability of the decision making process to a significant or substantial degree without countervailing benefit to the public.
In the consideration of this appeal, it is of critical relevance to note that the formal and legal decision of Government has yet to be made in relation to the approval of the finalised revised NPF, which includes consideration of the submissions.
It is important that this deliberative process is allowed to reach its conclusion.
In light of the above, it is the opinion of this Department that it is reasonable that these documents should not being released at this time.
[…]
Noting the Department’s stated position which is set out above as to why the submissions should not be released at this time, I wish to advise you that it is the intention of this Department to publish all of the submissions made during the consultation stage at the appropriate juncture.”
30. The Department also provided this Office with a schedule of 272 submissions records that had been identified as relevant to the appellant’s request and a copy of its privacy policy which was referred to in Question 12 the FAQs (here) for the consultation. I note that Question 11 of those FAQ’s also stated “[a]ll submissions will be published online.”
31. The Department made no specific reference in either of its decisions or its submissions to this Office to article 10 of the AIE Regulations and any public interest balancing test carried out.
32. While the submissions records identified as relevant have not been provided to this Office by the Department, I am satisfied that they comprise responses to the Department’s public consultation on the draft revision of the NPF (further details regarding the public consultation are available here and here ). In that context, I conclude that the submissions which have been provided to the Department are not being actively being worked on and cannot be characterised as being in and of themselves “material in the course of completion”, “unfinished documents”, or “unfinished data”; it is clear they are complete.
33. However, I will now go on to consider the general thrust of the Department’s position which appears to be that the submissions concern material in the course of completion on the basis that they relate to the review of the NPF and will be considered as part of this process. I note the Department’s comments in its decisions and its submissions to this Office set out above, including that “the consideration of the submissions remains a matter for Government in the course of the approval of the finalised Revised NPF”; that following this approval “the final draft will then be submitted to the Houses of the Oireachtas for approval”; and that “[t]he current legal status of the revision process for the NPF is that it remains ongoing until such a time as it is concluded in line with the provisions of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 (as amended).”
34. I accept that the review of the NPF is ongoing and the submissions at issue were provided in response to the Department’s public consultation. However, while I acknowledge that the submissions will be considered in respect of and may inform material that is being actively worked on regarding the review, including any report on the submissions, they are separate and independent pieces of work. I am not satisfied that the submissions, which are from parties outside of the Department, can be said to be inextricably linked to any material being actively worked on regarding the review or to the review in general such that article 9(2)(c) would apply. The consultation process is complete and the submissions have been received by the Department. Any ongoing work on the submissions may come within the private thinking space of the Department that article 9(2)(c) seeks to protect, but this is a separate matter to whether the submissions at issue are exempt under article 9(2)(c).
35. The Department also provided no explanation as to why it considered that release of the submissions prior to the Government “formally considering same in the context of a decision to approval a finalised revised NPF as is required by legislation” would (a) contaminate the decision making process and (b) impair the integrity and viability of the decision making process to a significant or substantial degree without countervailing benefit to the public. The Department simply stated “[i]t is of critical relevance to note that the formal and legal decision of Government has yet to be made in relation to the approval of the finalised revised NPF, which includes consideration of the submissions” and “[i]t is important that this deliberative process is allowed to reach its conclusion.” It is the information requested which must be considered when assessing whether article 9(2)(c) applies, rather than the decision-making process to which the information relates. The question is whether the information requested “concerns material in the course of completion or unfinished documents or data” and not whether the related decision-making process is ongoing. It would be contrary to the temporary nature of the exemption provided for in article 9(2)(c) to apply it to the submissions at issue throughout the entirety of the remainder of the review of the NPF on the basis that they concern material in the course of completion. For the same reasons, I also do not consider that the submissions concern unfinished documents or unfinished data.
36. I find, therefore, that article 9(2)(c) of the AIE Regulations is not engaged. In the circumstances, I am not required to go on and consider article 10 of the AIE Regulations.
37. Accordingly, I direct the release of the release of the 272 submissions records identified as relevant by the Department, subject to the minor redaction of information that falls outside the scope of this review – namely any personal details that would generally be redacted by the Department when publishing submissions received in response to a public consultation. As indicated above, this does not preclude the appellant from making a subsequent request to the Department for such redacted information should he wish to do so.
38. I wish to note that I am satisfied that I can make this decision notwithstanding that copies of the submissions at issue were not provided to this Office. I would typically require sight of the information at issue prior to any consideration of a determination to direct release, however I do not consider this to be required because of the particular circumstances of this case including the nature of the information requested, in particular, the fact that the submissions were sent to the Department on foot of a public consultation whereby it was evident that they would (at some stage) be published.
39. In reaching my decision, I also assessed whether it was necessary to notify the third parties who made the submissions to the Department. Again, because of the particular circumstances of this case and the fact that the submissions were sent to the Department on foot of a public consultation whereby it was evident that they would (at some stage) be published, I was satisfied that there was no remaining relevant information coming within the scope of the review the release of which may adversely affect those parties and that it was not necessary to notify any third party in the circumstances.
40. Having carried out a review under article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, I hereby annul the Department’s decision under articles 9(2)(c) of the AIE Regulations in this case. I direct the Department to release the submissions identified, subject to the redaction of certain information which does not fall within the scope of this review, as described above.
41. 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