Summary: The Commissioner annulled the decision of TUSLA and directed it to undertake a fresh decision-making process in respect of the records, having due regard to The Freedom of Information Act 2014 (Section 37(8)) Regulations 2016, S.I. No. 218/2016 and Guidance produced by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform.
Date: 20-11-2019
Case Number: OIC-53238-H6C3M7 (180405)
Public Body: TUSLA
Section of the Act.: s.6, s.6(2), s.37, s.37(1), s.37(8), s.41, s.41(1)(a), s.41(1)(b),
Summary: The Commissioner varied TUSLA's decision. He affirmed its decision on certain records under sections 15(1)(a), 31(1)(a) and 37(1) of the FOI Act. He annulled its decision on certain records or parts of records and directed their release. He annulled its decision on certain other records and directed TUSLA to make a fresh decision, having due regard to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2014 (Section 37(8)) Regulations 2016, S.I. No. 218/2016 and Guidance produced by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform.
Date: 20-11-2019
Case Number: OIC-53262-W9S7J8 (180523)
Public Body: TUSLA
Section of the Act.: s.15, s.15(1)(a), s.31, s.31(1)(a), s.37, s.37(1), s.37(8), s.41, s.41(1)(a), s.41(1)(b),
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the OPW?s decision. She found that section 36(1)(b) of the FOI Act applies to the records at issue as their release would disclose commercially sensitive information and the public interest would, on balance, be better served by refusing the request.
Date: 20-11-2019
Case Number: OIC-53431-B4H2C7 (190180)
Public Body: Office of Public Works
Section of the Act.: s.36, s.36(1)(b),
Summary: The Senior Investigator annulled the decision of CDETB to charge a fee of ?1,140 for the search for, and retrieval and copying of, records in respect of the applicant?s request. He found that the CDETB failed to comply with the requirement in section 27(5) to notify the applicant of the need for a deposit within two weeks of receipt of the request.
Date: 19-11-2019
Case Number: OIC-56436-B9L2F1
Public Body: City of Dublin Education and Training Board
Section of the Act.: s.27
Summary: The Senior Investigator annulled the decision of the Agency. He directed it to reconsider the applicant?s requests separately.
Date: 18-11-2019
Case Number: OIC-56431-Q7R1J2
Public Body: Land Development Agency
Section of the Act.: s.27
Summary: The Senior Investigator annulled the HSE?s decision and directed it to conduct a fresh decision-making process. He found that the HSE had taken an unduly narrow interpretation of the request and had therefore failed to justify its decision under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act.
Date: 15-11-2019
Case Number: OIC-53515-X3K1R4
Public Body: Health Service Executive
Section of the Act.: s.15, s.15(1)(a),
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the Service.
Date: 14-11-2019
Case Number: OIC-55129-K6M0M3
Public Body: Houses of the Oireachtas Service
Section of the Act.: s.37
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the Central Bank to refuse access to the record sought under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act.
Date: 14-11-2019
Case Number: OIC-56045-P0K7C0
Public Body: Central Bank of Ireland
Section of the Act.: s.15, s.15(1)(a),
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed HIQA?s decision. She found that the parts of the record that relate to the applicant are not exempt under section 36(1)(b) of the FOI Act.
Date: 13-11-2019
Case Number: OIC-55173-M3X6M6
Public Body: Home and Health Information and Quality Authority
Section of the Act.: s.36, s.36(1)(b), s.38
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed HIQA?s decision. She found that the parts of the record that relate to the applicant are not exempt under section 36(1)(b) of the FOI Act.
Date: 13-11-2019
Case Number: OIC-55252-V9P3J5
Public Body: Home and Health Information and Quality Authority
Section of the Act.: s.36, s.36(1), s.38, s.38(1),