Decisions of the Information Commissioner

The Senior Investigator affirmed TUSLA’s decision, under section 31(1)(a) of the FOI Act.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the OPW’s decision. She found that confirming or denying whether the requested records exist could endanger the life or safety of the Garda Commissioner and others (sections 32(1)(b) and 32(2) of the FOI Act). She was also satisfied that if the records existed, any of the circumstances necessary to require consideration of the public interest test at section 32(3) would not be present.

The Senior Investigator annulled the decision of the Council and directed it to conduct a fresh decision-making process on the request.

The Senior Investigator annulled the decision of CDETB to charge a fee of €760 for the search for, and retrieval and copying of, records in respect of the applicant’s request. He found that the CDETB failed to comply with the requirement in section 27(5) to notify the applicant of the need for a deposit within two weeks of receipt of the request.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the Revenue’s refusal of the request under section 15(1)(c) (voluminous request). She also found that the requirements of section 15(4) (to assist or offer assistance to amend the request so that section 15(1)(c) no longer applies) had been met.

The Senior Investigator annulled the decision of the Department and directed it to undertake a fresh decision-making process in respect of each of the applicant’s requests. Having regard to the particular circumstances arising, he found that the Department was not justified in deeming the requests to be vexatious on the ground that they were submitted to circumvent having to pay search and retrieval charges.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the HSE’s refusal to grant the request under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act, on the basis that she was satisfied that it had carried out reasonable searches for the records and the records cannot be found or no longer exist.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the Council. He found that the applicant had failed to submit his section 10 application within 12 months of becoming aware of the substantive act for which a statement of reasons was sought and that he did not have a material interest in matters affected by the various related acts or to which they relate.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the HSE to refuse the application for amendment on the ground that the HSE does not hold the records at issue.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the HSE to refuse access to the records sought under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act.