Summary: The Senior Investigator varied the decision of RTÉ. While he found that it was justified in refusing access to two of three records it identified as coming within the scope of the applicant's request, he found that it was not justified in refusing access to the third record and he directed its release to the applicant.
Date: 22-05-2020
Case Number: OIC-61324-K9D9X4
Public Body: Radio Teilifís Éireann
Section of the Act.:
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the Hospice to refuse the request under section 15(1)(a).
Date: 22-05-2020
Case Number: OIC-67193-L0K9M6
Public Body: Marymount University Hospital & Hospice
Section of the Act.: s.15, s.15(1)(a),
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the Department's decision.
Date: 21-05-2020
Case Number: OIC-61293-W4P6M8
Public Body: Department of Justice and Equality
Section of the Act.: s.15, s.15(1)(a),
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the Hospital.
Date: 19-05-2020
Case Number: OIC-61120-F0M8G0
Public Body: St James's Hospital
Section of the Act.: s.9
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the Hospital's decision to refuse access to the additional records sought under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act on the ground that no further records exist or can be found.
Date: 18-05-2020
Case Number: OIC-60060-K3F7X0
Public Body: St Vincent's University Hospital
Section of the Act.: s.15, s.15(1)(a),
Summary: The Senior Investigator varied the Council's decision. He affirmed the Council?s decision to refuse access, under section 31(1)(a) of the Act, to four email records it identified as coming within the scope of the request. However, he directed the Council to undertake a fresh decision making process on the request on the ground that it may hold other relevant records.
Date: 18-05-2020
Case Number: OIC-60599-R6B4M7
Public Body: Cork County Council
Section of the Act.: s.31, s.31(1)(a),
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the PAS's decision. She found that some of the withheld parts of the records are not within the scope of the applicant?s request. She found the remaining withheld records and parts of records to be exempt under sections 30(1)(a) (examinations carried out by an FOI body) and 37(1) (personal information) of the FOI Act. She found that the public interest in granting access to the details concerned did not outweigh the public interest in withholding them.
Date: 18-05-2020
Case Number: OIC-62547-V0G1R3
Public Body: Public Appointments Service
Section of the Act.: s.30, s.30(1)(a), s.37, s.37(1),
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the Department?s decision. She found that the information withheld from the records falls outside the scope of the request so that the application of exemptions does not arise in relation to it. She found that section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act applies to the applicant?s request insofar as it relates to any additional records. She further found that the search and retrieval fees charged by the Department were justified under the FOI Act.
Date: 15-05-2020
Case Number: OIC-56012-X2W6G7 AND OIC-55962-L4C6Y3
Public Body: Department of Finance
Section of the Act.: s.15, s.15(1)(a),
Summary: The Senior Investigator found that the Council was not justified in refusing the applicant's request under section 15(1)(g). He annulled the Council's decision and directed that it undertake a fresh decision-making process on the applicant's request
Date: 15-05-2020
Case Number: OIC-61234-G3P5Q6
Public Body: Clare County Council
Section of the Act.: s.15, s.15(1)(g),
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the Department's decision under section 29(1) of the Act (deliberative processes).
Date: 14-05-2020
Case Number: OIC-61162-L2X4Y0
Public Body: Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport
Section of the Act.: s.29, s.29(1),