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 UCD's decision.
Date: 19-12-2016
Case Number: 160283
Public Body: University College Dublin
Section of the Act.: s.37
Summary: The Senior Investigator found that UCC was not justified in refusing the request under sections 15(1)(a) and 15(1)(c). He directed UCC to make a fresh decision-making process on the applicant's request.
Date: 16-12-2016
Case Number: 160479
Public Body: University College Cork
Section of the Act.: s.15, s.15(1)(a), s.15(1)(c),
Summary: The Senior Investigator found that the HSE was justified in its decision that no further records exist
Date: 15-12-2016
Case Number: 160378
Public Body: Health Service Executive West
Section of the Act.: s.15, s.15(1)(a),
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the Council
Date: 15-12-2016
Case Number: 160321
Public Body: Medical Council
Section of the Act.: s.31, s.31(1)(a),
Summary: The Senior Investigator found that the PRA was justified in refusing the request on the ground that no further records exist or could be found after all reasonable steps to ascertain their whereabouts were taken.
Date: 15-12-2016
Case Number: 160384
Public Body: The Property Registration Authority
Section of the Act.: s.15, s.15(1)(a),
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the Council's refusal of access to the records on the basis of section 36(1)(b) of the FOI Act (Commercially Sensitive Information). She found the records to be exempt under section 36(1)(b) and that, on balance, the public interest would be better served by refusing access to the records.
Date: 09-12-2016
Case Number: 160242
Public Body: Clare County Council
Section of the Act.: s.36
Summary: The Senior Investigator found that the Department was not justified in its decision to refuse access to the information sought. He annulled the decision of the Department and directed the release of both records in full
Date: 08-12-2016
Case Number: 160289
Public Body: Department of Education and Skills
Section of the Act.: s.37
Summary: The Commissioner varied the decision of the Service. He affirmed the Service's decision to refuse access to the names of the individuals under section 28(1) of the FOI Act. He annulled the Service's decision in relation to the remainder of the records at issue, consisting of the relevant entries of the visitors register for Leinster House. He directed the release of the relevant entries subject to the redaction of the names of the individuals concerned.
Date: 08-12-2016
Case Number: 160039
Public Body: The Houses of the Oireachtas Service
Section of the Act.: s.26, s.28
Summary: The Senior Investigator found that the majority of the records requested fell within Schedule 1, Part 1(x)(iii) of the FOI Act so that the Act does not apply to them. She found that NAMA's decision to refuse access to the remaining records at issue was justified under section 41(1)(a) of the FOI Act. She affirmed NAMA's decision accordingly
Date: 08-12-2016
Case Number: 160078
Public Body: National Asset Management Agency
Section of the Act.: s.41, s.41(1),
Summary: The Senior Investigator varied RTÉ's decision. He directed the release of the redacted names of RTÉ staff members, and a small amount of other non-personal information
Date: 08-12-2016
Case Number: 160264
Public Body: RTÉ
Section of the Act.: s.31, s.31(1)(a), s.37, s.37(1),