Decisions of the Information Commissioner

The Senior Investigator varied the decision of the HSE. While he found that the HSE was justified in refusing access to the vast majority of the information at issue under section 37(1), he found that a small amount of information was not exempt and directed its release.

The Senior Investigator affirmed TUSLA’s decision.

The Senior Investigator affirmed TUSLA’s decision on the withheld information, under sections 15(1)(a) and 37(1) of the FOI Act.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the Department. He found that the Department had provided an adequate statement of reasons for the purposes of section 10 of the Act.

The Senior Investigator affirmed Revenue’s decision to refuse access to the records concerned under section 41(1)(a) of the Act, on the basis that disclosure of the information concerned is prohibited by Council Regulation (EU) No 904/2010.

The Senior Investigator annulled the Department’s decision. She found that the information was not exempt under sections 29(1) (deliberative process) or 30(1)(b) (functions relating to management). While she accepted that it was exempt under 30(1)(c) (negotiations of the Government or FOI body), she found that the public interest weighed in favour of disclosure. She directed the Department to release the figure.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the Agency's decision. She found that the applicant was not entitled to access withheld information in the records under section 37 of the FOI Act. She found that the public interest in granting the request does not outweigh the public interest in upholding the right to privacy of the various third parties.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the Department’s decision. She found that section 35(1)(b) (duty of confidence) applied to the record.

The Senior Investigator annulled DCU’s decision and directed it to consider the applicant’s request afresh.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision. She found that the records are exempt under section 37 of the FOI Act. She found that the public interest in granting the request does not outweigh the public interest in upholding the right to privacy of the various third parties whose personal information is in the records.