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 Commissioner found that the Service was not justified in refusing access to parts of the records at issue. He varied the Service's decision, directing the release of certain records, in part.
Date: 10-07-2015
Case Number: 140158
Public Body: Houses of the Oireachtas Commission
Section of the Act.: s.23, s.26, s.28
Summary: The Senior Investigator found that the section 38 requirements were not applied correctly in this case to such an extent that the Commissioner had not jurisdiction to deal further with it. She annulled the decision of the Department
Date: 10-07-2015
Case Number: 150175
Public Body: Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport
Section of the Act.: s.38
Summary: The Senior Investigator found that the HSE was justified in deciding to refuse access to the records, in accordance with section 30(1)(a) and section 37(1) of the FOI Act. She affirmed the decision of the HSE.
Date: 10-07-2015
Case Number: 150031
Public Body: Health Service Executive Mid Leinster
Section of the Act.:
Summary: The Senior Investigator found that the section 38 requirements were not applied correctly in this case and annulled the decision of the Department/
Date: 10-07-2015
Case Number: 150157
Public Body: Department of Environment, Community and Local Government
Section of the Act.: s.38, s.38(2), s.38(3)(a),
Summary: The Senior Investigator found that the Department was justified in its decision to refuse access to the records sought. He affirmed the decision of the Department.
Date: 02-07-2015
Case Number: 150069
Public Body: Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine
Section of the Act.:
Summary: The Senior Investigator varied the decision of the Defence Forces and found that the applicant was not entitled to the statement of reasons sought
Date: 29-06-2015
Case Number: 150066
Public Body: The Defence Forces
Section of the Act.: s.10
Summary: The Senior Investigator varied TUSLA's decision. She affirmed its decision that section 28(1) and/or 28(5B) applies to all of the records withheld in full or in part with one exception. The Senior Investigator found that the redaction from the records of the names of Gardaí and teachers was not in accordance with sections 28 or 26 of the Act and she directed that such information should be released to the applicant
Date: 26-06-2015
Case Number: 140282
Public Body: The Child and Family Agency (TUSLA)
Section of the Act.:
Summary: The Commissioner varied the decision of the CER and found that section 10(1)(a) applied to records 76-80; that section 22(1)(a) applied to records 83 and 86; that section 28 applied to the redacted part of record 85. He found that section 27 applied to the redacted information in record 19; Appendix 1 only of Record 46, the questions only in record 57; records 58, 59, 63, 65, 72, and 73, and to record 66 attachment only. He found that section 26(1)(a) did not apply to any parts of records not otherwise exempt under other sections of the FOI Act. He directed the release of record 46 apart from the appendix, record 57 apart from the questions, and record 66 apart from the attachment.
Date: 26-06-2015
Case Number: 130264, 130287
Public Body: Commission for Energy Regulation
Section of the Act.: s.10,
Summary: The Senior Investigator found that the Commission was not justified in refusing access to the records at issue. He directed the release of the records. He also found that the Commission was not justified in charging the applicant a fee, and directed that monies paid by the applicant be refunded to him.
Date: 25-06-2015
Case Number: 150051
Public Body: Commission for Energy Regulation
Section of the Act.:
Summary: The Senior Investigator varied the decision of the Department. He found that the Department was justified under section 19(1)(a) of the FOI Act in refusing access to one of the records at issue, and that it was justified under section 22(1)(a) of the Act in refusing access to one further record. He found that the Department was not justified under section 22(1)(a) of the FOI Act in refusing to release the remainder of the records at issue. He directed the release of those records.
Date: 25-06-2015
Case Number: 150002
Public Body: Department of Social Protection
Section of the Act.: