Decision
Mr Y and Data Protection Commissioner
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-162470-G8Y0Y7
Published on
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-162470-G8Y0Y7
Published on
Whether the DPC has complied with the requirements of section 10 of the FOI Act in response to an application for a statement of reasons concerning its decision to withdraw the applicant’s offer of mobility employment
23 January 2026
The Civil Service Mobility Scheme offers civil servants opportunities to apply for transfer to other Civil Service offices. As I understand it, the applicant was offered and accepted a transfer to the DPC under the Mobility Scheme but the offer was subsequently withdrawn by the DPC. On 30 May 2025, the applicant applied for a statement of reasons as to why the decision was made to cancel his appointment, together with any findings of material issues of fact made.
On 30 June 2025, the DPC provided a statement of reasons. On 3 July 2025, the applicant sought an internal review of the DPC’s decision on the ground that he considered the statement provided to be defective and flawed in eight identified respects. On 23 July 2025, the DPC affirmed its original decision, maintaining that the statement provided was adequate in the context of the requirements of section 10 of the FOI Act. On 15 September 2025, the applicant applied to this Office for a review of the DPC’s decision.
I have now completed my review in accordance with section 22(2) of the FOI Act. While I do not intend to repeat either the DPC’s submissions or those of the applicant in full here, I can confirm that I have had regard to both for the purposes of this review. I have decided to conclude this review by way of a formal, binding decision.
This review is concerned solely with whether the statement of reasons provided by the DPC in relation to its withdrawal of the offer of mobility to the applicant complies with the requirements of section 10 of the FOI Act.
Section 10 of the FOI Act provides that a person is entitled to a statement of reasons for an act of an FOI body where that person is affected by the act and has a material interest in a matter affected by the act or to which it relates. The statement of reasons must give the reasons for the act and any findings on any material issues of fact made for the purposes of the act. In the statement of reasons provided, the DPC said its HR team was required to withdraw the offer of mobility having regard to an identified significant conflict of interest relating to the DPC’s functions and operations. It said it has a responsibility to uphold the highest standards in the context of its statutory independent role and functions. It said the applicant would be aware that he has had a significant amount of engagement with the DPC over a number of years, including both operational and legal matters. It said it had identified 21 previous cases in which the applicant had engagement with the DPC, in addition to one live case that was open at that time. It said the role it wished to fill and had envisaged assigning to the applicant is incompatible in those circumstances and would constitute a direct conflict of interest. It said it would not be possible operationally for the DPC to assign the applicant to such a role, where access to information, documentation and privileged material from precedent cases, including a significant number of cases in which the applicant was a party, is a necessary and unavoidable aspect of the function.
In his application for internal review request, the applicant said that the DPC’s statement was defective and flawed in several material respects. Among other things, he said the statement failed to show the legal basis for the withdrawal, to meaningfully explain why someone who had gained experience of the DPC as a customer could be blackballed as a result, to explain how access to certain records could not be restricted or what mitigations to avoid conflict of interest were considered and rejected, or to explain why there was no prior consultation with him. He said the statement fails to consider his previous service and good character and the applicability of the Official Secrets Act or the impact that the last-minute decision would have on the Civil Service Mobility policy and on his current employer. He argued that the DPC’s decision was rooted in some unexplained, irrational and unreasonable prejudices grounded on some unwarranted personal and/or professional animus and said that the statement of reasons should have set it out in such clear terms.
In his submissions to this office, the applicant noted that the DPC issued a decision on a separate request where it indicated that it held no records concerning conflicts of interest in hiring and staffing issues within the DPC. He further referenced an open letter from a group of organisations and individuals to the Taoiseach and other high-ranking officials expressing their opinion regarding the appointment of the third Data Protection Commissioner. He suggested that senior roles can be filed within the DPC “with scant or no regard to conflicts of interest”.
In its submissions, the DPC said that the reason for the ‘act’ has been clearly set out in its statement, i.e. that in respect of the particular role, a conflict of interest has been identified and exists, which means that it could not proceed with a mobility transfer into the specific post it had envisaged filling via the mobility move. It said the material issues of fact made for the purposes of the act concerned were also set out in the statement of reasons, i.e. that a significant number of precedent cases existed in which the applicant was or is a party. It said its statement of reasons clearly explained and set out that the specific role it was seeking to fill requires unavoidable ongoing access to material, including legally privileged material, relating to the precedent cases to which the applicant was or is a party and that this would represent a conflict of interest. It said its statement also explained that the DPC is statutorily independent in its functions and that it must have regard to issues such as this in that context.
Regarding the applicant’s claim that its decision was rooted in some unexplained, irrational and unreasonable prejudices grounded on some unwarranted personal and/or professional animus, the DPC said the applicant has presented no evidence to support such an assertion and that it categorically denies that any such ‘prejudices’ or ‘professional animus’ exist. It said the applicant is not known professionally or personally to any of those working in the team who managed his application for mobility. It said the decision was made on the basis of objective facts as set out in its submissions and in the statement of reasons. It said the clearest evidence that no such ‘prejudices’ or ‘animus’ exists is that the applicant was previously offered a mobility move to the DPC for a different role. It said no issues were raised by the DPC regarding that original offer and that the only reason it did not proceed is because the applicant withdrew his request for mobility.
This Office takes the view that a statement of reasons provided pursuant to section 10 of the FOI Act should be intelligible and adequate having regard to the particular circumstances of the case. The statement should be sufficiently clear to enable an applicant to understand without undue difficulty why the FOI body acted as it did. It should identify the criteria relevant to the act and explain how each of the criteria affected the act. However, we do not consider that a statement should necessarily have to contain a detailed clarification of all issues identified by an applicant as relevant to a particular act or decision. Essentially, a statement of reasons should be sufficiently clear to enable an applicant to understand without undue difficulty why the FOI body acted as it did.
Having examined the applicant’s correspondence with both the DPC and with this Office following receipt of the statement of reasons, it seems to me that the applicant knows precisely why the offer of mobility was withdrawn. His submissions do not suggest that the statement of reasons provided does not explain why the offer of mobility was withdrawn. Rather they instead focussed on an argument that the decision taken was not justified. Indeed, his application for internal review contains arguments that engage directly with the reasons relied upon for withdrawing the offer.
As the applicant is aware from his many previous engagements with this Office, it is not within our remit to consider the appropriateness, or otherwise, of administrative actions taken by public bodies. We have no role in examining the appropriateness or otherwise of the DPC’s decision to withdraw the offer of mobility. This review is concerned solely with whether the statement of reasons provided adequately explains why the DPC acted as it did. The fact that the applicant disagrees with the decision taken and the basis on which it was taken does not negate the fact that the reasons for the DPC’s decision to withdraw the offer have now been given. Having carefully considered the matter, I am satisfied that the statement of reasons provided is adequate for the purposes of section 10.
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby affirm the DPC’s decision. I find that the DPC has complied with the provisions of section 10 of the FOI Act and that the statement provided is adequate.
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.
Stephen Rafferty
Senior Investigator