Summary: The Investigator affirmed the Department’s decision.
Date: 15-04-2026
Case Number: OIC-151679-T3B5G8
Public Body: Department of Foreign Affairs
Section of the Act.: s.15, s.15(1)(a),
Summary: The Investigator affirmed Tusla’s decision.
Date: 15-04-2026
Case Number: OIC-200101-A0A0H4
Public Body: Tusla
Section of the Act.: s.15, s.15(1)(c),
Summary: The Investigator varied the Department’s decision. She found that the Department was justified in refusing access under section 15(1)(a) to records relating to Parts 1,2,3 and 6 of the applicant’s request. She directed the Department to reconsider Parts 4, 5 and 7 of the applicant’s request and to issue a fresh decision with respect to these parts.
Date: 15-04-2026
Case Number: OIC-200017
Public Body: Department of Social Protection
Section of the Act.: s.15, s.15(1)(a),
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the Council’s decision to refuse access to the information sought pursuant to section 37(1).
Date: 14-04-2026
Case Number: OIC-160208-X6X2N5
Public Body: Medical Council
Section of the Act.: s.22, s.22(2), s.37, s.37(1),
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the Art Council’s decision to refuse access to the records sought under section 37(1)
Date: 13-04-2026
Case Number: OIC-158298-S8B3F8
Public Body: The Arts Council
Section of the Act.: s.37, s.37(1),
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the HPRA’s decision to grant access, in full or in part, to the records sought.
Date: 13-04-2026
Case Number: OIC-152966-S6C4N5
Public Body: The Health Products Regulatory Authority
Section of the Act.: s.22, s.22(2), s.35, s.35(1)(a), s.36, s.36(1)(b),
Summary: The Investigator found that the withheld details were not exempt under sections 33(1)(d) (international relations) or 36(1)(b) (commercial sensitivity) of the FOI Act. She directed the University to grant access to the details concerned.
Date: 10-04-2026
Case Number: OIC-156349-J5N3N6
Public Body: University of Galway
Section of the Act.: s.33, s.33(1)(d), s.36, s.36(1)(b),
Summary: The Investigator affirmed SIPO’s decision. He found that SIPO was justified in refusing access the records at issue under section 31(1)(a) of the FOI Act.
Date: 10-04-2026
Case Number: OIC-157713-T1V0J1
Public Body: Standards in Public Office Commission
Section of the Act.: s.31, s.31(1)(a),
Summary: The Senior Investigator varied the Council’s decision. He found that the Council was justified in its decision to refuse access, under section 15(1)(a), to any further relevant records. He found that the Council was justified in redacting certain third party personal information from a number of the records. He found that a small amount of redacted information was not exempt under section 37(1) and he directed its release.
Date: 10-04-2026
Case Number: OIC-158969-L2D9Y9K
Public Body: Dublin City Council
Section of the Act.: s.15, s.15(1)(a), s.37, s.37(1),
Summary: The Senior Investigator varied Tusla’s decision. He found that it was justified in refusing access, in full or in part, to the records at issue under sections 31(1)(a) and 37(1) of the FOI Act, but that it was not justified in redacting certain information under section 32(1)(c) and he directed the release of that information.
Date: 10-04-2026
Case Number: OIC-157252-N4K6Q9
Public Body: Tusla
Section of the Act.: s.31, s.31(1)(a), s.37, s.37(1),