Decisions of the Information Commissioner

The Senior Investigator affirmed Tusla’s decision. He found that Tusla is not required to disclose the existence or non-existence of the records sought under section 37(6) of the FOI Act.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the Council’s decision.

The Senior Investigator affirmed TUSLA’s decision to refuse access to the records at issue under section 37(1) of the FOI Act.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the Department’s decision to refuse access to the record concerned under section 28(1)(b) of the FOI Act

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the Council.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of UCD

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the DPP.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the Council’s decision.

The Senior Investigator varied Revenue’s decision. He found that it was justified in refusing access to certain records that had previously been released to the applicant but that it was not justified in refusing all relevant records for the entire period under that section. He directed Revenue to consider afresh the applicant’s request for records for the period other than those already released on foot of her earlier request.