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 decision to refuse access to the records concerned was justified under section 21(1)(a) of the FOI Act. He affirmed the BAI's decision accordingly.
Date: 17-11-2014
Case Number: 120260
Public Body: The Broadcasting Authority of Ireland
Section of the Act.: s.21, s.21(1)(a),
Summary: The Senior Investigator upheld the Department's refusal of access. However, she found that section 28 of the FOI Act applied whereas the Department had relied on other exemptions. She found the majority of the details in the records to comprise personal information about parties other than the applicant, and the remainder to comprise the joint personal information of the applicant and a number of other parties. She further found that the public interest in protecting the rights to privacy of the other parties to whom the information also relates outweighed the public interest in release in the circumstances of this case.
Date: 17-11-2014
Case Number: 120302
Public Body: The Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government
Section of the Act.: s.28, s.28(1), s.28(5)(a), s.28(5)(b), s.28(5B),
Summary: The Senior Investigator found that the Hospital was justified in its decision to refuse access to the records sought in accordance with the provisions of section 21(1)(a) of the FOI Act. Accordingly, she affirmed the decision of the Hospital.
Date: 17-11-2014
Case Number: 120240
Public Body: Our Lady's Children's Hospital
Section of the Act.: s.20, s.20(1), s.21, s.21(1)(a), s.21(1)(b), s.21(2), s.26, s.26(1),
Summary: The Senior Investigator found that the Defence Forces was not justified in its decision to refuse access to the record sought in accordance with the provisions of section 22(1)(a) of the FOI Act and directed that the record in question be released to the applicant.
Date: 14-11-2014
Case Number: 140192
Public Body: Defence Forces Ireland
Section of the Act.: s.22, s.22(1)(a),
Summary: The Senior Investigator varied the decision of the Department and found that, in accordance with section 46(2), the FOI Act does not apply to records 17-19 which are records available to the public free of charge. She further found that section 22(1)(b) applies to records 6-16; that Section 27(1)(b) applies to the withheld information in record 5; and that Section 28(1) applies to some information in record 1 and to the withheld information in records 3 and 4. She directed the release of record 1, apart from the exempt information and record 2.
Date: 14-11-2014
Case Number: 130033
Public Body: Department of Finance
Section of the Act.: s.22, s.22(1)(b), s.27, s.27(1)(b), s.28, s.28(1),
Summary: The Information Commissioner varied the Department's decision. He found that hard copy (paper) records of relevance to parts 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the request were no longer held by the Department and he was unable to consider such records or otherwise direct their release. He annulled the Department's effective refusal of electronic records of potential relevance to these elements of the request, which were still held by the Department, and directed the Department to consider such records afresh. The Commissioner affirmed the Department's refusal of the records relevant to the remaining aspects of the request within the scope of the review, finding section 10(1)(a) of the FOI Act to apply, or otherwise that the withheld details were not encompassed by the scope of the particular elements of the request. (The Commissioner's findings on the individual aspects of the request are, for ease of reference, set out in bold font in the body of this decision.)
Date: 13-11-2014
Case Number: 110055
Public Body: Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport
Section of the Act.: s.10, s.10(1)(a), s.10(1)(c), s.10(2),
Summary: The Information Commissioner varied the Department's decision. He directed the release of a small number of the records relevant to parts 7 and 29 of the request. He found that hard copy (paper) records of relevance to parts 1, 2, 5, 14 and 18 of the request were no longer held by the Department and he did not have jurisdiction to consider such records or otherwise direct their release. He annulled the Department's effective refusal of electronic records of potential relevance to these elements of the request, which were still held by the Department, and directed the Department to consider such records afresh. The Commissioner upheld the Department's refusal of the majority of the records relevant to the remaining aspects of the request within the scope of the review, finding them to be exempt from release, or outside the scope of the FOI Act as appropriate, under sections 10(1)(a), 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 19(1)(c), 22(1)(a), 24(1)(c), 24(2)(e), 26(1)(b), 27(1)(b), 28(1), 46(1)(b) and 46(2) of the FOI Act. (The Commissioner's findings on the individual aspects of the request are, for ease of reference, set out in bold font in the body of this decision.)
Date: 13-11-2014
Case Number: 090077
Public Body: Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport
Section of the Act.: s.10, s.10(1)(a), s.19, s.19(1)(a), s.19(1)(b), s.19(1)(c), s.22, s.22(1)(a), s.24, s.24(1)(c), s.24(2)(e), s.26, s.26(1)(b), s.27, s.27(1)(b), s.28, s.28(1), s.46, s.46(1)(b), s.46(2),
Summary: The Senior Investigator found that the Council was justified in its decision to refuse access to further relevant records in accordance with the provisions of section 10(1)(a) of the FOI Act. He affirmed the decision of the Council.
Date: 10-11-2014
Case Number: 140047
Public Body: Dublin City Council
Section of the Act.: s.10, s.10(1)(a), s.10(1)(c), s.10(2),
Summary: The Senior Investigator varied the decision of the Department and directed the release of extracts of the withheld record. He found that the Department was justified in its decision to refuse access to other parts of the record on the basis of section 22(1)(b) of the FOI Act.
Date: 05-11-2014
Case Number: 140126
Public Body: Department of Justice and Equality
Section of the Act.: s.22, s.22(1)(b), s.22(1B), s.23, s.23(1)(a)(ii), s.26, s.26(1)(a), s.28, s.28(1), s.28(2), s.28(5), s.28(5)(b), s.28(5B),
Summary: The Senior Investigator found that Cheshire Ireland 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 Cheshire Ireland.
Date: 05-11-2014
Case Number: 140191
Public Body: Cheshire Ireland
Section of the Act.: s.10, s.10(1)(a),