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 found that TUSLA was justified in its decision to refuse access to the records, in whole or in part, under section 23(1)(b) of the FOI Act
Date: 01-04-2015
Case Number: 140346
Public Body: TUSLA - Child and Family Agency
Section of the Act.:
Summary: The Senior Investigator found that the Council was justified in its decision to refuse access to the records sought in accordance with the provisions of section 10(1)(a) and section 22(1)(a) of the FOI Act. He affirmed the decision of the Council.
Date: 31-03-2015
Case Number: 140007
Public Body: Kildare County Council
Section of the Act.:
Summary: The Senior Investigator found that the Council was justified in its decision to refuse access to the records sought in accordance with the provisions of section 10(1)(a) of the FOI Act. He affirmed the decision of the Council.
Date: 31-03-2015
Case Number: 140055
Public Body: Mayo County Council
Section of the Act.:
Summary: The Senior Investigator found that section 10(1)(a) of the FOI Act applied in that the HSE had carried out reasonable searches for further records relevant to parts of the request and that it had justified its position that no additional records relevant to part of the request exist. She upheld the HSE's refusal, under section 28 of the FOI Act, to refuse to release in full records covered by the review that it had found, including its refusal to release the original of a handwritten letter it had provided to the applicant in typed format. She found that the details were the joint personal information of the applicant and a number of other parties, with the public interest in protecting the rights to privacy of the other parties to whom the information also relates outweighing the public interest in release in the circumstances of this case.
Date: 30-03-2015
Case Number: 140049
Public Body: The Health Service Executive
Section of the Act.: s.10,
Summary: The Senior Investigator found that the HSE was justified in its decision to refuse access to the withheld portions of the records under section 28 of the FOI Act.
Date: 30-03-2015
Case Number: 140227
Public Body: HSE South
Section of the Act.: s.28
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the HSE's decision to refuse access to the report.
Date: 30-03-2015
Case Number: 140334
Public Body: Health Service Executive
Section of the Act.: s.28
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the Department to refuse to provide a statement of reasons on the ground that it cannot say what were its reasons. He also affirmed the Department's decision to refuse access to further records on the ground that no such records exist or can be found.
Date: 25-03-2015
Case Number: 140265
Public Body: Department of Social Protection
Section of the Act.: s.10,
Summary: The Senior Investigator found that the Defence Forces was justified in its decision to refuse access to the records sought in accordance with the provisions of section 10(1)(a) of the FOI Act. He affirmed the decision of the Defence Forces.
Date: 25-03-2015
Case Number: 140340
Public Body: Defence Forces
Section of the Act.:
Summary: The Senior Investigator found that the Defence Forces was justified in its decision to refuse access to the records sought in accordance with the provisions of section 10(1)(a) of the FOI Act. He affirmed the decision of the Defence Forces.
Date: 25-03-2015
Case Number: 140343
Public Body: Defence Forces
Section of the Act.:
Summary: The Commissioner varied the decision of the IGB. He found that the FOI Act does not apply to Item 10 under Section 46(1)(c)(ii). He further found that Section 10(1)(a) applies to any further records which are relevant to Items 1, 6, 12 and 13 on the basis that they do not exist or cannot be found after reasonable steps have been taken to look for them. He further found that Section 28(1) applies to some information relevant to Items 4 and 8; that Section 27(1)(b) applies to two pieces of information relevant to Item 4 and that Section 22(1)(a) applies to Item 14. In relation to Items 2, 5 and 7, he was not satisfied that a finding could be made that section 10(1)(a) applied since the emails of a former official of the IGB had, apparently, not been searched. He annulled that part of the decision and directed the IGB to undertake a fresh decision making process on Items 2, 5 and 7.
Date: 25-03-2015
Case Number: 120179
Public Body: Bord na gCon
Section of the Act.: