OIC Decisions
Decisions issued from January 2022 onwards can be found here. Earlier decisions will be uploaded in the coming months. If you require an earlier decision then please email us at info@oic.ie
Decisions issued from January 2022 onwards can be found here. Earlier decisions will be uploaded in the coming months. If you require an earlier decision then please email us at info@oic.ie
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the HSE to refuse access to the withheld information. He found that section 37 applied to the withheld information.
Date: 24-04-2018
Case Number: 170467
Public Body: Health Service Executive
Section of the Act.: s.37, s.37(1), s.37(8),
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of NUIG to refuse to grant access to records on the basis of sections 35 and 37 of the FOI Act. He also affirmed its decision to refuse to grant access to minutes of the Foundation's meetings, on the basis of section 2(5) of the Act.
Date: 23-04-2018
Case Number: 170333
Public Body: National University of Ireland, Galway
Section of the Act.: s.35, s.35(1)(b), s.37, s.37(1),
Summary: The Senior Investigator varied the Defence Forces' decision. She affirmed its decision on the majority of the records, under sections 15(1)(a), 31(1)(a), 32 and 37 of the FOI Act. She annulled its decision on one record and directed its release.
Date: 19-04-2018
Case Number: 170359
Public Body: Defence Forces
Section of the Act.: s.15, s.15(1)(a), s.31, s.31(1)(a), s.32, s.32(1)(a)(i), s.33, s.37
Summary: The Senior Investigator varied the decision of the Department and directed the release of the record located during the course of the review. He found that the Department was justified in refusing access to any other records on the ground that no additional relevant records exist or can be found.
Date: 17-04-2018
Case Number: 170429
Public Body: Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection
Section of the Act.: s.15, s.15(1)(a),
Summary: The Senior Investigator varied the Department's decision. She annulled the Department's refusal of attachments to various emails, which it had withheld having general regard to their nature rather than their specific contents. She directed the Department to make a new decision on these records in accordance with the requirements of the FOI Act. The Senior Investigator affirmed the Department's refusal to grant access to the remainder of the records, although under section 40(1)(a) (information having a serious, adverse effect on the financial interests of the State) rather than the exemptions claimed by the Department. In the particular circumstances of the case, she found the public interest in openness and transparency not to outweigh the public interest in preventing an adverse impact on the State's financial interests.
Date: 17-04-2018
Case Number: 170452
Public Body: Department of Health
Section of the Act.: s.40, s.40(1)(a),
Summary: The Information Commissioner varied the HSE's decision. He affirmed its refusal of records in the public domain (section 15(1)(d)) and records containing personal information (section 37). He affirmed its refusal to fully grant access to the 70 records it had individually considered, although under section 40(1)(a) (information having a serious, adverse effect on the financial interests of the State) rather than the exemptions claimed by the HSE. Where the above exemptions required the application of a public interest test, the Commissioner found that, in the circumstances of this case, the public interest did not on balance favour the grant of access to the records.
Date: 13-04-2018
Case Number: 170395
Public Body: Health Service Executive
Section of the Act.: s.15, s.15(1)(c), s.15(1)(d), s.37,
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed TUSLA's decision. She found that it had justified its refusal of the request on the basis that it had carried out reasonable searches and that section 15(1)(a) applies.
Date: 05-04-2018
Case Number: 170338
Public Body: TUSLA: Child and Family Agency
Section of the Act.: s.15
Summary: The Senior Investigator varied TUSLA's decision. She found that it was not justified in refusing access to further records under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act and directed it to undertake a fresh decision-making process in this respect. She annulled its decision to refuse access to certain records and directed the release of those records. She affirmed its decision to refuse access to the remaining records, under sections 31(1)(b) and 37 of the FOI Act.
Date: 05-04-2018
Case Number: 170350
Public Body: TUSLA
Section of the Act.: s.15, s.31, s.37
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the Department?s decision. She found that it had justified its refusal of access to additional records on the basis that they do not exist and/or that reasonable searches had been carried out (section 15(1)(a)). She found that sections 30(1)(b) or section 37(1) applied to certain records as release of these records would have a significant adverse effect on staff management in the Department or would disclose personal information about persons other than the applicant and the public interest would, on balance, be better served by refusing the release of these records. She found that the remaining records attracted legal professional privilege (section 31(1)(a)) or were created by the Office of the Attorney General and were not subject to the FOI Act (section 42(f)).
Date: 04-04-2018
Case Number: 170420
Public Body: A Government Department
Section of the Act.: s.15, s.15(1)(a), s.30, s.30(1)(a), s.30(2), s.37,
Summary: The Senior Investigator varied TUSLA's decision. She annulled its decision to refuse access to one record and directed the release of that record, subject to the redaction of personal information of individuals other than the applicants. She affirmed its decision to refuse access to the remaining records under sections 31 and 37 of the FOI Act.
Date: 28-03-2018
Case Number: 170404
Public Body: TUSLA: Child and Family Agency
Section of the Act.: s.31, s.31(1)(a), s.31(1)(b), s.37,