Cinneadh
Ms Z & Department of Education and Youth
Ó Oifig an Choimisinéara Faisnéise
Cásuimhir: OIC-200218-A0A0Q9
Foilsithe
Teanga: Níl leagan Gaeilge den mhír seo ar fáil.
Ó Oifig an Choimisinéara Faisnéise
Cásuimhir: OIC-200218-A0A0Q9
Foilsithe
Teanga: Níl leagan Gaeilge den mhír seo ar fáil.
Whether the Department was justified in refusing the applicant’s request for records relating to the UN and UNESCO under section 15(1)(b) of the FOI Act
14 May 2026
On 10 January 2026, the applicant asked the Department for records of any communications, agreements, facilitations or contracts with the United Nations (UN) and/or UNESCO since 1998, in relation to Ireland, the Department of Education, the Irish people, or children, and anything else related to education.
On 12 January, citing section 12(1)(b) of the Act, the Department informed the applicant that the information provided by her was not sufficient to enable a reasonable search for records. The Department asked her to provide as much information as she could relating to the specific records to which she wanted access. The Department also asked her to specify which agreements, facilitations or contracts she was interested in and to clarify the subject of possible communications. Finally, the Department warned the applicant that it would refuse any voluminous or unclear requests under the Act.
On the same day, the applicant responded to say that the Department’s request for specification was placing an onerous obligation on her and that it was not fulfilling its obligations under the Act. She asked for someone more senior in the Department to deal with her request.
On 13 January, the Department warned the applicant that her request continued, as it said, to threaten refusal under sections 15(1)(b), (c) and (g) of the Act. The Department said that it would be happy to process the applicant’s request but that it required more information regarding the specific records she was seeking.
On the same day, the applicant responded to say that the Department’s request to provide more information was vague, misleading and causing obstruction. In essence, she said that any refusal of a valid FOI request that is an unlawful withholding of information would be understood as a wilful act of obstruction and concealment of records kept.
In submissions to this Office, the Department noted that it set the request date as 13 January as it became clear at this point that it was unlikely to receive any clarification of what the applicant was seeking. Nevertheless, on the same day, the Department asked the applicant once more to clarify which records she was seeking. The applicant responded on 15 January to say that, as she does not work for the Department, she has no way of knowing what precise names it has given to files that contain the information she is requesting. She said that the intention of her request was very clear from her original email of 10 January.
As the Department did not issue a decision within the statutory timeframe, on 12 February the applicant requested an internal review of its deemed refusal.
On 4 March, the Department refused the applicant’s request under section 15(1)(b) of the Act, stating that it did not comply with section 12(1)(b). The Department referred to its obligation to provide reasonable assistance and said that the email sent to the applicant on 13 January sets out the additional information the Department would require in order to process the applicant’s request, which, the Department said, it had not received to date.
On 9 March, this Office received the applicant’s request for a review of the Department’s internal review decision.
The Department has refused the applicant’s request under section 15(1)(b) of the Act on the basis that it does not contain sufficient particulars to enable the records sought to be identified. This review is therefore solely concerned with whether the Department was justified in refusing records relating to the applicant’s request under that provision of the Act.
I would like to address a preliminary matter before proceeding to the substantive issues of this review.
In correspondence with this Office, the applicant said that at no point was she informed by the Department of the possibility of appealing to this Office. I note that neither the Department’s internal review decision notice nor the email containing it, refer to the applicant’s right to apply to this Office for review. I remind the Department that it is obliged under section 21(5)(f) of the Act to specify in its internal review decision notice, particulars of the rights of review and appeal under the FOI Act in relation to the decision, the procedure governing the exercise of those rights and the time limits governing such exercise.
Section 15(1)(b)
Section 15(1)(b) of the FOI Act allows an FOI body to refuse to grant a request if it considers that the request does not comply with section 12(1)(b), which requires that a request contain sufficient particulars in relation to the information sought to enable the record to be identified by the taking of reasonable steps. Section 15(1)(b) is subject to section 15(4) of the Act, which provides that a body cannot refuse a request under section 15(1)(b) unless it has first assisted or offered to assist the requester to amend the request so that it would no longer fall to be refused under section 15(1)(b).
Section 15(4)
The FOI Act is silent on the precise nature or level of the assistance to be offered under section 15(4). This Office takes the view that before a body can refuse a request under section 15(1)(b), the body must first have provided reasonable assistance to the requester in amending the request or have offered to provide assistance in cases where the requester is not willing to amend the original request, in order to comply with the requirements of section 15(4). On the question of what constitutes reasonable assistance, this Office considers that the level or nature of the assistance to be provided can vary significantly from case to case and will depend on the willingness of the parties to engage in meaningful discussion on what might be acceptable in the circumstances.
While there is an onus on FOI bodies to assist, or at least offer to assist, requesters (as required under section 15(4)), it is often the case that requesters are best placed to offer suggestions as to how a more focused search for relevant records might take place, based on their knowledge of the type of information they wish to access. This is not always straightforward, as requesters may not necessarily be aware of the type, nature and/or location of the records held.
In its submissions to this Office the Department said that, given the exceptionally broad scope of the request, its FOI unit contacted the applicant seeking clarification and requesting more specific details regarding the records sought. The Department said that this included asking her to identify, where possible, specific agreements, subjects of correspondence, or categories of records to enable reasonable searches to be conducted in accordance with Section 12(1)(b) of the Act. The Department said that the applicant subsequently responded but did not narrow or clarify the scope of the request. The Department added that a further reply from the applicant referred to the original wording of the request without providing additional information.
The Department said that, as the request remained extremely broad and covered potentially 27 years of correspondence and documentation, its International Unit concluded that it was not possible to identify and retrieve the records sought by means of reasonable steps. According to the Department, the volume and nature of the material potentially captured by the request would include a wide range of records, some containing sensitive or third-party information, with many potentially held in off-site storage. The Department concluded that its International Unit determined that it could not process the request further in its current form without more specific detail from the applicant. The Department included emails from its interactions with the applicant which, it said, show that she was given the opportunity to narrow the scope of the original request. I note that these emails correspond to the interactions of 12, 13 and 15 January summarised in the “Background” section of this decision.
As outlined above, there were a number of exchanges of correspondence between the Department and the applicant concerning the scope of this request. Within these exchanges, the Department asked the applicant on at least three occasions to provide further information in order to clarify which records she was seeking. The applicant for her part responded to the Department’s queries but maintained that she could not identify specific records as she was not aware of the names that the Department has given to files containing the information she is seeking. The applicant insisted that the Department was best placed to identify relevant records on the basis of the wording of her original request.
I acknowledge the Department’s position that this request, as worded, potentially captures a large volume of records and I accept that the Department notified the applicant of its position. I also fully accept that there will be occasions where it is difficult for an FOI body to suggest amendments to a request so that it no longer falls to be refused under section 15(1)(b) and that applicants must cooperate with the body’s efforts to assist. However, in my view the Department’s repeated suggestion that the applicant specify which records she is seeking does not, in the circumstances, amount to a reasonable offer of assistance. It seems to me that there was further scope for the Department to engage with the applicant when she claimed a lack of familiarity with the records it holds. For example, the Department could have offered a meeting or a phone call with a view to giving the applicant some background on the kinds of relevant records it holds and to ascertain if a particular category might be of more interest to her. I also consider that the Department’s unexplained reference to section 15(1)(g) in its email of 13 January was not helpful.
As noted above, the applicant said that she does not know what specific records are held by the Department. Although the Department engaged to some extent by asking the applicant to provide further information, in my view it ought to have engaged more meaningfully to help her to provide sufficient particulars so as to enable the requested records to be identified by the taking of reasonable steps.
Having regard to all the circumstances, I find, on balance, that the Department has not complied with section 15(4) in this case. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the most appropriate course of action to take is to annul the Department’s decision and to direct it to undertake a fresh consideration of the request. If the Department intends to rely on section 15(1)(b) in making its new decision, it must comply with the requirements of section 15(4) beforehand. While I am making no finding on whether section 15(1)(b) would have applied in this case had I found that the Department complied with section 15(4), it seems to me that the applicant’s request is, indeed, quite broad. I would encourage the applicant to engage with the Department with a view to establishing the precise nature of the information she wishes to access. The applicant will have a right to an internal review and a review by this Office if she is not satisfied with the Department’s fresh decision.
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby annul the Department’s decision to refuse the applicant’s request under section 15(1)(b) of the Act and I direct it to undertake a fresh decision-making process on the request.
Section 24 of the FOI Act sets out detailed provisions for an appeal to the High Court by a party to a review, or any other person affected by the decision. In summary, such an appeal, normally on a point of law, must be initiated not later than four weeks after notice of the decision was given to the person bringing the appeal.
Mary Connery
Investigator