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 varied the decision of Irish Water and found that the applicant was not entitled to the statement of reasons sought
Date: 15-12-2015
Case Number: 150133
Public Body: Irish Water
Section of the Act.: s.21,
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the Department
Date: 11-12-2015
Case Number: 150282
Public Body: Department of Public Expenditure and Reform
Section of the Act.:
Summary: The Senior Investigator found some parts of the records to be exempt under sections 22(1)(a), 27(1)(b) and 28(1) of the FOI Act but directed the release, in the public interest, of some of the material she had found to be exempt under sections 27 and 28. She found the Council had not justified its refusal of access to the remainder of the withheld records under sections 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28 and 31; she annulled those parts of the decision and directed the release of the details concerned
Date: 10-12-2015
Case Number: 140181
Public Body: Cork City Council
Section of the Act.: s.21, s.22, s.23, s.26, s.27, s.28, s.31
Summary: The Senior Investigator varied the decision of the Hospital and found that the Hospital was justified in its refusal of certain records under sections 30(1)(c), 31(1)(a), 36(1)(c) and 37. She affirmed the Hospital's decision in relation to those records. She found that no exemption applied to other records identified as withheld. She annulled the Hospital's decision in relation to these records and directed their release.
Date: 10-12-2015
Case Number: 150120
Public Body: A hospital
Section of the Act.: s.31,
Summary: The Senior Investigator upheld TUSLA'S decision. She found sections 37(1) and 37(7) of the FOI Act to apply in that the records contained either the personal information of third parties including the applicant's nephews, or the joint personal information of the applicant and such third parties. She found that two records were also exempt under section 31(1)(b). While she found that TUSLA had not justified its effective refusal of access to certain records that it had not located and considered, those records were exempt under section 37(7) having regard to their nature. She found that the public interest that the rights of privacy of the individuals to whom the information relates should be upheld outweighs the public interest that the request be granted
Date: 10-12-2015
Case Number: 150204
Public Body: TUSLA Child and Family Agency
Section of the Act.:
Summary: The Senior Investigator varied the decision of the Hospital. He found that the Hospital was not required, under the provisions of section 10 of the FOI Act, to provide a statement of reasons for certain matters relating to the care and treatment of the applicant's daughter.
Date: 10-12-2015
Case Number: 150271
Public Body: St Vincent's University Hospital
Section of the Act.: s.10
Summary: The Senior Investigator found that the section 38 requirements were not applied correctly in this case to such an extent that the Commissioner had not jurisdiction to deal further with it. She annulled the decision of the Board
Date: 04-12-2015
Case Number: 150356
Public Body: Irish Film Board
Section of the Act.: s.38
Summary: The Senior Investigator varied the decision of the Service to refuse access to the record. He found that it was entitled to refuse access under section 42(l) of the FOI Act
Date: 02-12-2015
Case Number: 150040
Public Body: Houses of the Oireachtas Service
Section of the Act.: s.15, s.42
Summary: The Senior Investigator found that the Council was not justified in refusing access to the records. He annulled the Council's decision and directed the release of the records to the applicant
Date: 30-11-2015
Case Number: 140151
Public Body: Cork County Council
Section of the Act.: s.21, s.23, s.27
Summary: The Commissioner varied the decision of the Department. He annulled its decision in relation to the contract, except for those parts which he found to be exempt under section 15(1)(d) of the FOI Act, as they are in the public domain. He directed the Department to confirm or deny the existence of a record relating to payments and to decide whether to grant access to it if it exists.
Date: 30-11-2015
Case Number: 150062
Public Body: Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources
Section of the Act.: s.36, s.36(4), s.35, s.38