Cinntí OIC
Is féidir cinntí a eisíodh ó Eanáir 2022 ar aghaidh a fháil anseo. Má theastaíonn cinneadh níos luaithe uait, déan teagmháil linn ag info@oic.ie
Is féidir cinntí a eisíodh ó Eanáir 2022 ar aghaidh a fháil anseo. Má theastaíonn cinneadh níos luaithe uait, déan teagmháil linn ag info@oic.ie
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the Department.
Date: 21-11-2017
Case Number: 170250
Public Body: Department of Social Protection
Section of the Act.: s.15, s.15(1)(a),
Summary: The Senior Investigator varied the decision of the Department. He found that the Department was justified, under section 15(1)(a), in refusing access to one report on the ground that the report sought does not exist. He found that section 32(1)(c) applies to paragraphs 7.3 to 7.8 of the report sought at item 9 of the applicant's request and to paragraph 4.5 of the report sought at item 18. He directed the release of paragraphs 7.1, 7.2, 7.9 and 7.10 of item 9 and paragraph 10.2 of item 18.
Date: 21-11-2017
Case Number: 170402
Public Body: Department of Justice and Equality
Section of the Act.: s.32, s.32(1)(c), s.15
Summary: The Senior Investigator varied the decision of the IPS. He found that the IPS was justified in refusing access on the ground that the information sought falls within the meaning of section 37(1) of the FOI Act.
Date: 20-11-2017
Case Number: 170142
Public Body: Irish Prison Service
Section of the Act.: s.37, s.37(1),
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the Council. He found that no right of access would exist to any such records as they would have been created before the effective date applicable to the Council, i.e. 21 October 1998.
Date: 20-11-2017
Case Number: 170419
Public Body: Galway County Council
Section of the Act.: s.11
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the HSE's decision. She found that the HSE's decision to refuse access to the withheld information in the remaining records was justified under section 37(1) of the Act.
Date: 17-11-2017
Case Number: 170368
Public Body: Mr X and Health Service Executive (FOI Act 2014)
Section of the Act.: s.37
Summary: The Senior Investigator found that the section 38 requirements were not applied correctly in this case and annulled the decision of the Department. He directed it to conduct a new decision making process in compliance with the FOI Act.
Date: 17-11-2017
Case Number: 170527
Public Body: Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht
Section of the Act.: s.38
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the Department?s refusal to grant the applicant's request. She found that section 15(1)(a) applies on the basis that certain records do not exist, while others either do not exist or cannot be found after reasonable searches were carried out for them. She found that the grant of access to a record created from electronic systems would disclose personal information about the staff member and that section 37 applied. She further found that the public interest in granting the request for that record does not, on balance, outweigh the public interest in upholding the individual's right to privacy.
Date: 16-11-2017
Case Number: 170371
Public Body: Department of Agriculture Food and the Marine
Section of the Act.: s.15, s.15(1)(a), s.37, s.37(1), s.37(5),
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the Department's refusal of access to the records on the basis of section 36(1)(b) of the FOI Act (Commercially Sensitive Information). She found that, on balance, the public interest would be better served by refusing access to the records.
Date: 15-11-2017
Case Number: 170367
Public Body: Department of Public Expenditure and Reform
Section of the Act.: s.36, s.36(1)(b),
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the HSE. He found it was justified in refusing access to the information sought under section 15 (1)(a) of the FOI Act.
Date: 14-11-2017
Case Number: 170382
Public Body: Health Service Executive West
Section of the Act.: s.15, s.15(1)(a),
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the PAS decision. She found that it had justified its refusal of access to additional records on the basis that they do not exist and/or that reasonable searches had been carried out (section 15(1)(a)). She found that one record was exempt on the basis that it is in the public domain (section 15(1)(d)). She found that section 37 applied to parts of records containing personal information about persons other than the applicant and that the public interest in upholding the rights of privacy outweighs the public interest that the request be granted. She found records created by the Attorney General or the Office of the Attorney General were not subject to the FOI Act (section 42(f)) and that others attracted legal professional privilege (section 31(1)(a)) or were Government records (section 28(1)(a)).
Date: 09-11-2017
Case Number: 170326
Public Body: Public Appointments Service
Section of the Act.: s.2, s.15, s.28, s.31, s.37, s.42