Decision
Mr. Y & The National Treasury Management Agency (the NTMA)
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-162527-C0L6Q7
Published on
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-162527-C0L6Q7
Published on
Whether the NTMA was justified in charging the fee, provided for under section 27(13)(a)(i) of the FOI Act, to carry out an internal review of its original decision on the applicant’s FOI request
5 December 2025
When performing its statutory functions regarding claims against the State, the National Treasury Management Agency (the NTMA) is known as the State Claims Agency (the SCA).
On 16 July 2025, the applicant sought access to various categories of records he described as datasets relating to the State Claims Agency Neural Network Training Data, Settlement Algorithms & Clinical Incident Correlations (for the period 2013-2023), which he said were essential for patient safety AI research endorsed by HIQA. In a decision dated 13 August 2025, the NTMA refused the applicant’s request under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act on the ground that it had conducted searches, and no records were located. In its decision letter, the NTMA informed the applicant of his right of appeal under the FOI Act and explained that a fee of €30 (€10 for a medical card holder) applies for an internal review of its decision.
On 28 August 2025, the applicant sought an internal review of the NTMA’s decision. He said the records he is seeking are explicitly referenced in the State Claims Agency Annual Report 2021 and subsequent reports. The applicant said that he would not pay a fee and claimed the Regulations governing fees under the FOI Act expressly prohibit charging fees where the records sought relate to the understanding of Government activities of significant public interest.
The NTMA emailed the applicant on 1 September 2025 to confirm receipt of his request for internal review and said that a fee was required in order to process the request. It emailed the applicant again on 8 September 2025 to reiterate that a fee was required and said that if no correspondence was received from the applicant by 12 September 2025, the NTMA would assume he did not wish to proceed with the internal review. It subsequently emailed the applicant on 12 September 2025 to confirm that, as no additional communication had been received from him, it understood that he had chosen not to proceed with an internal review of his FOI request.
On 15 September, the applicant applied to this Office for a review of the NTMA’s decision to charge a fee to process his request for an internal review. He also requested a review of the NTMA’s decision to refuse his request under section 15(1)(a) of the Act.
I have now completed my review in accordance with section 22(2) of the FOI Act. In carrying out this review, I have had regard to the correspondence outlined above and to the submissions of both parties. I have decided to conclude this review by way of a formal binding decision.
This review is concerned solely with whether the NTMA was justified in charging the applicant a fee, provided for under section 27(13) of the FOI Act, to carry out an internal review of its original decision on the applicant’s FOI request.
This review is not concerned with the substantive decision made by the NTMA to refuse his request under section 15(1)(a) of the Act. Should the applicant choose to pay the fee for an internal review, it will be open to him to make a new application to this Office for a review of the NTMA’s substantive decision if he is not satisfied with the outcome of its internal review decision.
Section 27(13)
Section 27(13)(a)(i) of the FOI Act provides that a fee of such amount (if any) as may be prescribed shall (my emphasis) be charged by the FOI body and paid by the applicant to the body in respect of an application for internal review under section 21. These application fees are sometimes referred to as ‘up-front’ fees. The prescribed fee is set out in the Freedom of Information Act (Fees)(No.2) Regulations 2014 [S.I. No. 531 of 2014] (hereafter the Regulations). Under Regulation 4, a fee of €30 is prescribed for such applications, or €10 in the case of a medical card holder or a dependant of a medical card holder.
Under the Regulations, a fee is not payable in respect of an application for internal review where:
a) the record(s) contain only personal information relating to the applicant,
b) the application is in relation to a decision under section 9 or 10 or,
c) the application is in relation to a decision to charge a fee or deposit, or a fee or deposit of a particular amount, under section 27.
The Regulations do not contain any other exceptions to the prescribed fee for an application for internal review. It is clear, therefore, that the FOI Act requires applicants to pay a fee to the FOI body when requesting an internal review of its original decision where their FOI request concerns access to non-personal information. It is also clear that the applicant’s FOI request seeks access to records containing non-personal information and not records that contain only personal information relating to the applicant.
In his correspondence with this Office, the applicant said that the NTMA’s demand for €30 is unlawful. He claims that section 27(5)(b) of the FOI Act requires a waiver of the fees where disclosure is in the public interest. The applicant also claims that Regulation 3(2) of S.I. 531/2014 prohibits charging fees where records concern matters of significant public interest in understanding Government activities. He said that the unlawful fee has prevented an internal review and amounts to a constructive refusal under section 19 of the FOI Act and asked that this Office annul the fee as ultra vires.
The applicant is mistaken in his argument that section 27(5)(b) of the FOI Act requires a waiver of the fees where disclosure is in the public interest. There is no such provision in section 27(5)(b) of the Act. Similarly, the applicant’s claim that the Regulations prohibit charging fees where records concern matters of significant public interest is also mistaken. While there is a provision under section 27(6) of the Act which allows an FOI body to reduce or waive a search and retrieval and copying charge if some or all of the information contained in the record concerned would be of particular assistance to the understanding of an issue of national importance, this provision relates solely to search and retrieval fees and does not apply to the upfront fee for an internal review. The fee for an internal review is a separate charge to search and retrieval fees. It seems to me that the applicant may be confusing the provisions in the FOI Act whereby an FOI body can charge a fee to search and retrieve the records sought with the fee provided in the Act to process a request for internal review.
The language of the Act is clear that the charging of an upfront fee for an internal review is mandatory and must be paid prior to an FOI body accepting a request for an internal review. Where the appropriate fee is not paid, the body shall refuse to accept the application, and it is deemed, for the purposes of the FOI Act, not to have been made. While there are specific circumstances as outlined above where no fee applies, such as requests for personal information, it is clear that none of those circumstances apply in this case. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the NTMA was justified in requiring the applicant to pay the appropriate fee for an internal review of its decision and I find accordingly.
If the applicant wishes to proceed with his request for internal review, he must pay the appropriate fee to the NTMA. If he does proceed and is unhappy with the NTMA’s internal review decision, a right of appeal to this Office will apply.
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby affirm the NTMA’s decision to levy the fee prescribed in the Regulations and provided for under section 27(13)(a)(i) of the FOI Act to carry out an internal review of its decision on the applicant’s FOI request.
Section 24 of the FOI Act sets out detailed provisions for an appeal to the High Court by a party to a review, or any other person affected by the decision. In summary, such an appeal, normally on a point of law, must be initiated not later than four weeks after notice of the decision was given to the person bringing the appeal.
____________________
Richard Crowley
Investigator