Decisions of the Information Commissioner

The Senior Investigator affirmed the Council’s decision. In particular, he found that section 11(9) of the FOI Act did not apply and that the Council did not hold the file within the meaning of the Act.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the Department’s decision to refuse access to the records sought under section 37(1).

The Senior Investigator affirmed the Hospital’s decision. She found that the number of patients enrolled in the study is exempt under section 36(1)(b) and that the public interest does not weigh in favour of its disclosure. She found that information identifying the principal researchers is not exempt under sections 36(1)(b) or 39(1)(b) but that section 37(1) applies. She found that the public interest in upholding the right to privacy outweighed the public interest in granting that part of the request.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the Department. He found that the Department was not required to consider if relevant records are held by PDST on the ground that such records, if they exist, are not held by or under the control of the Department. He also found that the Department had taken all reasonable steps to ascertain the whereabouts of relevant records.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the Department. She found that it was justified in its decision to refuse access to further records under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act, on the basis that they did not exist or cannot be found after reasonable searches. She found that the Department was justified in its decision to refuse access under section 15(1)(d) on the basis that the information in one record is already in the public domain. She found that it was justified in its decision to withhold personal information of third parties under section 37(1). She found that the public interest in granting the request did not outweigh the public interest in upholding the privacy rights of individuals.

The Senior Investigator annulled the decision of the HSE on the ground that it failed to offer assistance to the applicant under section 15(4) of the FOI Act. He directed it to conduct a fresh decision-making process in respect of the applicant’s request.

The Senior Investigator found that LMETB was justified in its decision to charge a fee of €175 for the search for and retrieval of relevant records.

The Senior Investigator varied the decision of AIT. He found that section 15(1)(a) applied to part 2. He found that sections 15(1)(i), 31(1)(a) and 31(1)(b) applied to certain records. In so far as section 15(1)(a) was claimed or implied, he annulled the decision on parts 1, 3, 4 and 5 and directed that AIT undertake a fresh consideration of the request. He directed the release of records to which no exemption was found to apply.

The Senior Investigator annulled the decision of RTÉ and directed the release of the record in its entirety

The Senior Investigator affirmed AGS’s decision. She found that section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act applies to the applicant’s request insofar as it relates to additional records. She found that certain information withheld is exempt under section 37(1) of the FOI Act as release would involve the disclosure of personal information of individuals other than the applicant and the public interest that the request should be granted does not outweigh the public interest that the right to privacy of those individual(s) should be upheld. Finally, she found that the remainder of the withheld information falls within the exclusion in Schedule 1 Part 1(n) of the Act