Summary: The Commissioner found that CER's refusal decision was not justified, because CER had not properly considered whether the information which it held contained environmental information within the scope of the request. Accordingly, the Commissioner annulled CER's decision and expressed his expectation that CER would make a fresh decision in accordance with the AIE Regulations.
Date: 19-04-2017
Case Number: CEI/16/0017
Public Body: Commission for Energy Regulation
Article of the Reg.: Art.3(1)
Summary: The Commissioner found that the Council was not justified in refusing the request for the reason given. However, he accepted that the Council later established that it does not hold any environmental information of interest to the appellant. Accordingly, he affirmed the refusal decision, while varying the ground of justification to information not held.
Date: 13-04-2017
Case Number: CEI/16/0028
Public Body: Dublin City Council
Article of the Reg.: Art.7(5)
Summary: In accordance with article 12(5) of the Regulations, the Commissioner reviewed the Council's decision on the appellant's request. The Commissioner was satisfied that the Council disclosed all relevant information to the appellant at internal review stage. He therefore affirmed the decision of the Council
Date: 12-04-2017
Case Number: CEI/15/0034
Public Body: Clare County Council
Article of the Reg.: Art.12(5)
Summary: In accordance with article 12(5) of the Regulations, the Commissioner reviewed the Council's internal review decision on the appellant's request. The Commissioner found that the Council was not justified in applying the ground for refusal under article 9(2)(d). He found that article 10(1) applied to information held by the Council concerning the time and location of the incident, and the composition of chemicals emitted from the Smithstown facility. He found that the grounds for refusal concerning personal information and the interests of third parties under articles 8(a)(i) and (ii) do not apply in this case, since the appellant consented to the redaction of information identifying fire brigade staff and persons who contacted the emergency services. Under article 12(5)(c) of the AIE Regulations, the Commissioner required the Council to make three incident reports available to the appellant, subject to the removal from the reports of names of individual fire brigade staff, and subject to the removal of names and contact details of persons who contacted the emergency services in connection with the Smithstown incident.
Date: 12-04-2017
Case Number: CEI/15/0035
Public Body: Clare County Council
Article of the Reg.: Art.9(2)(d) Art.10(1)
Summary: The Commissioner found that the request was a valid AIE request which should now be processed by TII in accordance with the AIE Regulations
Date: 27-03-2017
Case Number: CEI/16/0014
Public Body: Transport Infrastructure Ireland
Article of the Reg.:
Summary: The Commissioner found that the Department's internal-review decision was not justified, because the decision-maker did not consider the relevant version of the diary. However, since that version is no longer available, the Commissioner was unable to determine if it contained any environmental information. Accordingly, the Commissioner did not consider it appropriate for him to annul the decision or to require the Department to provide the appellant with further information.
Date: 16-03-2017
Case Number: CEI/16/0033
Public Body: Department of Arts, Heritage, Regional, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs
Article of the Reg.:
Summary: The Commissioner found that the Department's internal-review decision was not justified, because the decision-maker did not consider the relevant version of the diary. However, since that version is no longer available, the Commissioner was unable to determine if it contained any environmental information. Accordingly, the Commissioner did not consider it appropriate for him to annul the decision or to require the Department to provide the appellant with further information.
Date: 16-03-2017
Case Number: CEI 16 0032
Public Body: Department of Arts, Heritage, Regional, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs
Article of the Reg.:
Summary: The Commissioner found that the Council was not justified in refusing to provide the appellant with access to a map showing land it had acquired by compulsory purchase, and he required the Council to provide the appellant with a copy of that map
Date: 16-03-2017
Case Number: CEI/16/0029
Public Body: Dun Laoghaire - Rathdown County Council
Article of the Reg.:
Summary: In accordance with article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, the Commissioner reviewed the decision of IDA Ireland and found that it was justified in refusing access to the information sought under article 7(5) of the Regulations. He affirmed the decision of IDA Ireland accordingly.
Date: 20-02-2017
Case Number: CEI/16/0020
Public Body: Industrial Development Agency (IDA)
Article of the Reg.:
Summary: Under article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, the Commissioner reviewed the decision of the Department. He affirmed the Department's decision to refuse the appellant's request for access to environmental information, but varied the reasons for refusal. He found that the Department was not justified in its decision that the information requested did not fall within the definition of "environmental information" set out in article 3(1). He found that the appellant's request does not relate to emissions into the environment for the purposes of article 10(1). The Commissioner found that the Department was partly justified in refusing to provide access to information on identifiable individuals recorded as owners or operators of peat extraction sites, on the basis that the exception under article 8(a)(i) applied to this information. He found that the Department was not justified in its decision that article 8(a)(i) applied to other information contained in the Peatlands Survey, to the extent that such information does not refer to identifiable individuals. He found that the Department was not justified in its decision that the exception under article 8(a)(ii) applied to the information requested. The Commissioner found that the exceptions under article 8(a)(iv) and 9(2)(d) do not apply in the present case. He found that article 9(1)(b) applies to the information requested, as disclosure of the information requested would adversely affect the course of justice. He found that the public interest in disclosure of the requested information did not outweigh the interests served by refusal under articles 8(a)(i) and 9(1)(b).
Date: 31-01-2017
Case Number: CEI/15/0016
Public Body: Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government
Article of the Reg.: Art.3(1) Art.9(1)(b) Art.10(1)