Summary: The Senior Investigator found that the HSE had failed to consider the Freedom of Information Act 2014 (Section 37(8)) Regulations 2016 when processing the request. He annulled the HSE?s decision and directed it to undertake a fresh decision-making process in respect of the applicant's request having due regard to the relevant Regulations.
Date: 26-08-2019
Case Number: OIC-53567-Y9S9D2
Public Body: Health Service Executive
Section of the Act.: s.11, s.11(4), s.37,
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the Hospital?s decision. She found that the number of patients enrolled in the study is exempt under section 36(1)(b) and that the public interest does not weigh in favour of its disclosure. She found that information identifying the principal researchers is not exempt under sections 36(1)(b) or 39(1)(b) but that section 37(1) applies. She found that the public interest in upholding the right to privacy outweighed the public interest in granting that part of the request.
Date: 22-08-2019
Case Number: OIC-53371-L7P2D8 (190115)
Public Body: Beaumont Hospital
Section of the Act.: s.36, s.36(1)(b), s.37, s.37(1),
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the Council's decision. In particular, he found that section 11(9) of the FOI Act did not apply and that the Council did not hold the file within the meaning of the Act.
Date: 22-08-2019
Case Number: OIC-53424-Q3B9V6
Public Body: Kilkenny County Council
Section of the Act.: s.11, s.11(9), s.15, s.15(1)(a),
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the Department?s decision to refuse access to the records sought under section 37(1).
Date: 22-08-2019
Case Number: OIC-53495-S1V9F3 (190226)
Public Body: Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Section of the Act.: s.37, s.37(1),
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the Department. He found that the Department was not required to consider if relevant records are held by PDST on the ground that such records, if they exist, are not held by or under the control of the Department. He also found that the Department had taken all reasonable steps to ascertain the whereabouts of relevant records.
Date: 21-08-2019
Case Number: OIC-53305-L3H8G0 (190055)
Public Body: Department of Education and Skills
Section of the Act.: s.15, s.15(1)(a),
Summary: The Senior Investigator varied the decision of AIT. He found that section 15(1)(a) applied to part 2. He found that sections 15(1)(i), 31(1)(a) and 31(1)(b) applied to certain records. In so far as section 15(1)(a) was claimed or implied, he annulled the decision on parts 1, 3, 4 and 5 and directed that AIT undertake a fresh consideration of the request. He directed the release of records to which no exemption was found to apply.
Date: 20-08-2019
Case Number: OIC-53228-Y2L6M3 (180019)
Public Body: Athlone Institute of Technology
Section of the Act.: s.15, s.15(1)(a), s.15(1)(i), s.31, s.31(1)(a), s.31(1)(b),
Summary: The Senior Investigator annulled the decision of the HSE on the ground that it failed to offer assistance to the applicant under section 15(4) of the FOI Act. He directed it to conduct a fresh decision-making process in respect of the applicant?s request.
Date: 20-08-2019
Case Number: OIC-53428-M0G1V7 (190177)
Public Body: Health Service Executive
Section of the Act.: s.15, s.15(1)(b), s.15(1)(c),
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the Department. She found that it was justified in its decision to refuse access to further records under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act, on the basis that they did not exist or cannot be found after reasonable searches. She found that the Department was justified in its decision to refuse access under section 15(1)(d) on the basis that the information in one record is already in the public domain. She found that it was justified in its decision to withhold personal information of third parties under section 37(1). She found that the public interest in granting the request did not outweigh the public interest in upholding the privacy rights of individuals.
Date: 20-08-2019
Case Number: OIC-53439-X6W9G3
Public Body: Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine
Section of the Act.: s.15, s.15(1)(a), s.15(1)(d), s.37,
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the Department. She found that it was justified in its decision to refuse access to further records under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act, on the basis that they did not exist or cannot be found after reasonable searches. She found that the Department was justified in its decision to refuse access under section 15(1)(d) on the basis that the information in one record is already in the public domain. She found that it was justified in its decision to withhold personal information of third parties under section 37(1). She found that the public interest in granting the request did not outweigh the public interest in upholding the privacy rights of individuals.
Date: 20-08-2019
Case Number: OIC-53439-X6W9G3
Public Body: Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine
Section of the Act.: s.15, s.15(1)(a), s.15(1)(d), s.37, s.37(1),
Summary: The Senior Investigator found that LMETB was justified in its decision to charge a fee of ?175 for the search for and retrieval of relevant records.
Date: 20-08-2019
Case Number: OIC-53443-T7W0X5 (190194)
Public Body: Louth and Meath Education and Training Board
Section of the Act.: s.27