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 the University. She affirmed the University's refusal of access to information redacted from one record as exempt under section 30(1)(b) of the Act. She annulled the University's decision to refuse access to certain records which it found exempt under section 31(1)(a) of the Act and directed release of the records in question. She affirmed the University's decision to refuse access to certain other records as exempt under section 31(1)(a) of the Act (legal professional privilege).
Date: 12-11-2015
Case Number: 150107
Public Body: University College Cork
Section of the Act.:
Summary: The Senior Investigator found that the Council was justified in its decision to charge a fee of €160 under section 27 of the FOI Act. He affirmed the decision of the Council.
Date: 11-11-2015
Case Number: 150212
Public Body: Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council
Section of the Act.: s.27
Summary: The Senior Investigator found that the Hospital was justified in its decision to refuse access to the records sought by the applicant under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act. He affirmed the decision of the Hospital.
Date: 04-11-2015
Case Number: 150215
Public Body: Our Lady's Children's Hospital
Section of the Act.:
Summary: The Commissioner varied the decision of the Service. He found that it was entitled to refuse access to certain records under section 31(1)(c)(ii), but that it was not entitled to refuse access to other records and directed their release.
Date: 03-11-2015
Case Number: 150142
Public Body: The Houses of the Oireachtas Service
Section of the Act.: s.31,
Summary: The Commissioner varied the NSCDA's decision. He found that it had not justified its decision to refuse access to most of the records under sections 22(1)(a), 22(1)(b) and 23(1)(a)(iv) of the FOI Act; he annulled those parts of the decision. He found that the NSCDA had justified its decision to refuse access to one record under section 22(1)(a) of the Act. He directed the release of records subject to the redaction of personal information of third parties under section 28 of the Act. He was not satisfied that a finding could be made that section 10(1)(a) applies to the effective refusal of access to any further records held that fell within the reduced scope of the request. He annulled that part of the decision and directed the NSCDA to undertake a fresh decision making process on those records.
Date: 02-11-2015
Case Number: 150068
Public Body: National Sports Campus Development Authority
Section of the Act.:
Summary: The Senior Investigator decided to annul the decision of the Council and directed the Council to conduct a fresh examination and decision making process on the records in respect of the "planning complaints file regarding 12/3481" which should include the records which came to light during the course of this review as identified on the schedules provided to this Office by the Council on 15 September 2015
Date: 30-10-2015
Case Number: 150180
Public Body: Wicklow County Council
Section of the Act.: s.35,
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the HSE's decision to refuse access to the records sought.
Date: 20-10-2015
Case Number: 150207
Public Body: Health Service Executive
Section of the Act.: s.37
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed TUSLA's decision to refuse access to the records under section 37 of the Act.
Date: 20-10-2015
Case Number: 150121
Public Body: TUSLA
Section of the Act.: s.35, s.37
Summary: The Senior Investigator found that TUSLA was justified in its decision to refuse access to the record sought by the applicant under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act. He affirmed TUSLA's decision.
Date: 20-10-2015
Case Number: 150222
Public Body: TUSLA
Section of the Act.:
Summary: The Commissioner varied the decision of the Department. He annulled its decision in relation to all but one of the records, which he found to be exempt under section 15 of the FOI Act as it is already in the public domain. He found that the Department had not justified its decision to refuse access to the remaining records on the basis of section 29(1) or section 37(1) of the FOI Act (except in relation to a small amount of personal information in one record).
Date: 16-10-2015
Case Number: 150098
Public Body: Department of Justice and Equality
Section of the Act.: