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 the Agency was justified in deciding to refuse access to the records, in accordance with section 28 of the FOI Act. She affirmed the decision of the Agency
Date: 29-07-2015
Case Number: 140300
Public Body: Tusla
Section of the Act.: s.28
Summary: The Senior Investigator varied TUSLA's decision. He found it was justified in its decision to redact certain information from the records released to the applicants under section 28 of the Act. However, he found that it was not justified in its decision to refuse access to further relevant records under section 10(1)(a) of the Act. He annulled the decision of TUSLA and directed that a fresh decision making process be undertaken in respect of the relevant records discovered during the course of this review.
Date: 29-07-2015
Case Number: 150039
Public Body: TUSLA
Section of the Act.: s.10,
Summary: The Senior Investigator varied the decision of the Council. He directed the release of the relevant records subject to the redaction of certain personal information under section 28(1) of the FOI Act. He affirmed the Council's decision to refuse access to further records on the ground that no such records exist or can be found
Date: 28-07-2015
Case Number: 140345
Public Body: Meath County Council
Section of the Act.:
Summary: The Senior Investigator varied the decision of the HSE in this case by (i) affirming the decision to refuse access to records 8, 9, 10 (part), and 19 on the basis of section 28(1) and record 15 on the basis of section 21(1)(a) of the FOI Act and (ii) directing the release of records 10 (part) and 11 with the personal information of individuals other than the applicant redacted in record 10.
Date: 24-07-2015
Case Number: 140099
Public Body: HSE
Section of the Act.:
Summary: The Commissioner found that section 27(1)(b) of the FOI Act applied to the employer names at issue. He also found, in the circumstances of this case (particularly the Department's effective acknowledgment that it had not complied with fair procedure in its continued exclusion of the employers concerned from the scheme as at the date of the request), that the public interest did not warrant release of the names concerned.
Date: 24-07-2015
Case Number: 140253
Public Body: Department of Social Protection
Section of the Act.: s.27
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of TUSLA in relation to most of the records to which access was refused under section 28 of the Act; she also affirmed TUSLA's decision that section 22(1)(b) applied to records relating to proceedings under the Child Care Act and found that this exemption also applied to several additional records; she also varied the decision of TUSLA in relation to certain parts of records which it had agreed to release and directed the release of those parts which were not found to be exempt under section 28.
Date: 24-07-2015
Case Number: 140308
Public Body: Tusla
Section of the Act.:
Summary: The Senior Investigator varied the decision of the Council and directed the release of one further record, subject to the redaction of personal information. He affirmed the Council's decision on the remainder of the records
Date: 24-07-2015
Case Number: 150090
Public Body: Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council
Section of the Act.: s.22, s.28
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the Hospital's decision.
Date: 23-07-2015
Case Number: 150059
Public Body: Beaumont Hospital
Section of the Act.:
Summary: The Senior Investigator annulled the decision of the HSE to charge a search and retrieval fee in this case
Date: 23-07-2015
Case Number: 150029
Public Body: HSE West
Section of the Act.: s.47
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 no jurisdiction to deal further with it. She annulled the decision of the Department.
Date: 22-07-2015
Case Number: 150156
Public Body: Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources
Section of the Act.: s.22, s.22(2),