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 Department's decision to refuse access to records 23 and 24 under section 19(2) and record 27 under section 22(1)(a) of the FOI Act. She varied the Department's decision in relation to record 17 insofar as factual information is to be released in accordance with section 19(3)(a) of the FOI Act. She also varied the Department's decision and directed that records 5 to 11, 14 and 18 to 22 be released in full as well as directing the release of the extracts relating to COGG in records 12, 15 & 16
Date: 29-10-2014
Case Number: 130087
Public Body: The Department of Education and Skills
Section of the Act.: s.19, s.19(1)(a), s.19(1)(b), s.19(1)(c), s.19(2)(a), s.19(3)(a), s.22, s.22(1)(a), s.34, s.34(10), s.34(12)(b),
Summary: The Senior Investigator found that the HSE was not justified in its decision to refuse access to the records on the basis of section 23(1)(aa). However, she found that the records should be refused under section 28(3). She drew attention to the provisions of section 28(4) which requires the HSE to offer access to the records concerned to such health professional having expertise in the subject-matter of the records as the requester may specify
Date: 28-10-2014
Case Number: 130020
Public Body: The Health Service Executive
Section of the Act.:
Summary: The Senior Investigator found that the Department was justified in its decision to refuse access to further relevant records sought in accordance with the provisions of section 10(1)(a). He affirmed the decision of the Department.
Date: 21-10-2014
Case Number: 130025
Public Body: Department of Justice and Equality
Section of the Act.: s.10, s.10(1)(a),
Summary: The Senior Investigator varied the decision of the Department and found that the FOI Act does not apply to Report 4 under Section 46(1)(c)(ii). She further found that Sections 20(1) and 31(1)(a) do not apply to exempt any of the information but that Section 23(1)(a)(v) applies to exempt some information in Report 3 Appendix 4 and that Section 28(1) applies to exempt the name of an individual in Report 10. She directed the release of Report 3 apart from the exempt information in Appendix 4; the release of Report 10 apart from the name of the individual; and the release of Report 11 in full.
Date: 17-10-2014
Case Number: 120202
Public Body: Department of Justice and Equality
Section of the Act.: s.21, s.21(1), s.23, s.23(1)(a)(v), s.28, s.28(1), s.31, s.31(1), s.46, s.46(1)(c)(II),
Summary: The Senior Investigator found that the HSE was justified in its decision to refuse access to the records sought in accordance with the provisions of sections 10(1)(a) and 28 of the FOI Act. Accordingly, she affirmed the decision of the HSE.
Date: 17-10-2014
Case Number: 120136
Public Body: Health Service Executive
Section of the Act.: s.8, s.8(4), s.10, s.10(1)(a), s.28, s.28(1), s.28(2), s.28(5), s.28(5)(a), s.28(5)(b), s.28(6), s.34, s.34(2), s.13
Summary: The Information Commissioner varied the Council's decision. He did not accept that the Council had justified its contention that the relevant withheld records continued to attract what is generally referred to as "litigation privilege" but accepted that certain of them attracted "legal advice privilege". He thus found such records to be exempt under section 22(1)(a) of the FOI Act. He directed the release of the remaining records (except for any personal or joint personal information therein) and, under section 34(13) of the FOI Act, specified the period of time within which effect shall be given to this element of his decision as within 10 working days of the expiration of the time for the bringing of an appeal to the High Court. He annulled the Council's effective refusal of any relevant records held by its legal advisors, and directed that it consider this aspect of the applicant's request afresh, in accordance with the provisions of the FOI Act.
Date: 09-10-2014
Case Number: 120210
Public Body: Meath County Council
Section of the Act.: s.22, s.22(1)(a), s.22(1)(b), s.34, s.34(9)(a)(iii), s.34(13),
Summary: The Senior Investigator found that the Board was justified in its decisions to refuse the applicant's requests pursuant to section 10(1)(e) of the FOI Act. He affirmed the decision of the Board in relation to the three requests.
Date: 03-10-2014
Case Number: 140122, 140123, 140124
Public Body: Legal Aid Board
Section of the Act.: s.10, s.10(1)(a), s.10(1)(e),
Summary: The Senior Investigator found that the Institute was justified in its decision to refuse the applicant's request pursuant to section 21(1)(b) of the FOI Act. He affirmed the decision of the Institute in relation to the request.
Date: 03-10-2014
Case Number: 140150
Public Body: Waterford Institute of Technology
Section of the Act.: s.21, s.21(1)(b),
Summary: The Information Commissioner annulled the NSCDA's refusal of the request. He found that NSCDA was not justified in its decision to refuse the requests under section 10(1)(e) of the FOI Act. He annulled the decisions and directed the NSCDA to make a fresh decision on both of the requests
Date: 03-10-2014
Case Number: 130027 and 130058
Public Body: National Sports Campus Development Authority
Section of the Act.: s.8, s.8(4), s.10, s.10(1)(c), s.10(1)(e), s.34, s.34(2), s.34(12)(b),
Summary: The Senior Investigator found that the Hospital was justified in its decision to refuse access to the third party information in the records sought in accordance with the provisions of section 28(1) of the FOI Act. He affirmed the decision of the Hospital.
Date: 03-10-2014
Case Number: 140041
Public Body: Beaumont Hospital
Section of the Act.: s.28, s.28(1),