Decisions of the Information Commissioner

The Senior Investigator varied Irish Rail’s decision. He directed the release of further parts of the records at issue on the ground that the redacted information did not comprise personal information for the purposes of the Act.

The Senior Investigator varied Eirgrid’s decision. She annulled its decision and directed the release of the record. She found that it was justified in refusing access to further information under section 15(1)(a).

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of TUSLA.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the CRU. He found that it was justified in refusing access to the records at issue on the basis of sections 30(1)(c), 36(1)(b) and 36(1)(c) of the FOI Act

The Senior Investigator varied the decision of the CIB. He directed the CIB to undertake a fresh decision making process in respect of any records in the possession of the service provider relating to parts 1 and 2 of the applicant's request. While he affirmed the CIB's decision to refuse access to the names of individuals who work for the service provider under section 37(1), he directed the release of the remainder of the information at issue.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the Council’s refusal of the name under section 42(m)(i) of the FOI Act, on the basis that it would disclose the identity of a person providing confidential information regarding the enforcement of the law.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of WCA.

The Senior Investigator annulled the decision of RTÉ and remitted the matter back to RTÉ for consideration anew

The Senior Investigator annulled the Defence Forces decision and directed it to undertake a fresh decision making process.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the Bank.