Decisions of the Information Commissioner

With the exception of a small amount of information which he found not to constitute personal information, the Senior Investigator affirmed the Authority's decision.

The Senior Investigator affirmed TU Dublin's decision.

The Investigator affirmed ATU's decision

The Investigator varied the Council's decision.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the CSSO's decision.

The Investigator affirmed the decision of the Department.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the Judicial Council to refuse access, under section 35(1)(a) of the Act, to the record sought.

The Senior Investigator varied the decision of the Department. He found that it was justified in redacting certain information from the records under section 37(1), apart from a small amount of information to which he found section 37(1) not to apply. He found that the Department was justified in refusing access to two records under section 33(1)(d) of the Act.

The Investigator affirmed the decision of the HSE.

The Senior Investigator varied the Council's decision. He found that the Council was justified in refusing access to certain records on the basis of section 15(1)(a) and 36(1)(b) of the FOI Act and found that the public interest, on balance, did not favour their release. He found that the Council was not justified in refusing access to other records on the basis of sections 35(1)(a), 36(1)(b) and 36(1)(c). He directed their release, subject to the redaction of personal information.