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 OPW's decision in relation to the withheld records, under sections 30(1)(c), 31(1)(a), 37 and 42(f) of the FOI Act.
Date: 30-11-2017
Case Number: 170319
Public Body: Office of Public Works
Section of the Act.: s.30, s.30(1)(c), s.31, s.31(1)(a), s.42, s.42(f), s.37
Summary: The Senior Investigator varied the decision of the Department. She found that it was justified under section 15(1)(a) in its effective refusal of access to additional records on the ground that they did not exist or could not be found once all reasonable steps had been taken to ascertain their whereabouts. She also affirmed the Department's decision to refuse access to records in full or in part on the basis of sections 30(1)(a), 30(1)(b) and 31(1)(a) of the FOI Act. She annulled the Department's decision in relation to sections 32(1)(a)(i) and 36(1)(b) and directed the release of additional records to the applicant.
Date: 29-11-2017
Case Number: 170066
Public Body: Department of Agriculture, Food & the Marine
Section of the Act.:
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of TUSLA to withhold access to certain records and parts in records on the basis of section 28 of the FOI Act.
Date: 29-11-2017
Case Number: 170148
Public Body: TUSLA
Section of the Act.: s.28
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the EAT under section 10 on the ground that the applicant is not entitled to a statement of reasons for the relevant act to which her request refers. He found that the applicant did not have a material interest in a matter affected by the act for which she sought a statement of reasons, or in a matter to which the act relates.
Date: 29-11-2017
Case Number: 170215
Public Body: Employment Appeals Tribunal
Section of the Act.: s.10
Summary: The Senior Investigator varied the Department's decision. She affirmed the Department's refusal to grant access to some of the records on the basis that they were outside the scope of the request, or contained personal information with the public interest not warranting release (section 37), or comprised a record given to the Taoiseach for the purposes of Dail proceedings (section 42(j)). She annulled the Department's refusal to grant access to a part of one record on the basis that it was outside the scope of the request, and directed the Department to make a new decision on this, subject to establishing that the applicant wants to have access to the information concerned. She annulled its refusal to grant access to the rest of the records and directed that access be granted to them.
Date: 29-11-2017
Case Number: 170296
Public Body: Department of Health
Section of the Act.: s.42, s.42(j), s.30, s.37
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the HSE to refuse the request under section 37(3).
Date: 29-11-2017
Case Number: 170432
Public Body: Health Service Executive
Section of the Act.: s.37, s.37(3),
Summary: The Senior Investigator annulled the decision of the Department. He found that section 29(1) does not apply to the withheld information and directed the release of same.
Date: 28-11-2017
Case Number: 170253
Public Body: Department of Finance
Section of the Act.: s.29
Summary: The Senior Investigator annulled the decision of the Department of Education & Skills. He found that it was not justified in refusing to grant access to the records under section 29 of the FOI Act.
Date: 23-11-2017
Case Number: 170482
Public Body: Department of Education & Skills
Section of the Act.: s.29, s.29(1),
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the Regulator under sections 35(1)(b) and 36(1)(b) of the FOI Act on the basis that the redacted comments disclosed confidential commercial plans and could otherwise result in harm to PLI's competitive position. As the partial release of the refusal letters had served the public interest in openness and transparency to some degree, she found that, on balance, the public interest would be better served by refusing access to the records at issue.
Date: 22-11-2017
Case Number: 170248
Public Body: Office of the Regulator of the National Lottery
Section of the Act.:
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the ODCE on the ground that the FOI Act does not apply to the footage by virtue of Schedule 1, Part 1(g).
Date: 22-11-2017
Case Number: 170474
Public Body: Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement
Section of the Act.: