Summary: Decision: The Senior Investigator affirmed RTÉ's decision. She found that section 15(1)(a) of the Act applies to the applicant's request for records relating to the video on the basis that that RTÉ justified its claim that it holds no records about it. She found that the records relating to the show were created as part of a process of making editorial decisions concerning programme or programme schedule content and therefore, these records fall outside the scope of the Act, having regard to the Freedom of Information Act, 1997 (Prescribed Bodies) (No.2) Regulations 2000 (S.I. No. 115 of 2000).
Date: 26-07-2017
Case Number: 170145
Public Body: RTÉ
Section of the Act.: s.35, s.36
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the HSE to refuse access to the records under section 37(3) of the Act.
Date: 26-07-2017
Case Number: 170198
Public Body: Health Service Executive
Section of the Act.: s.37, s.37(3), s.37(4),
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed TUSLA's decision, under section 37 of the FOI Act.
Date: 26-07-2017
Case Number: 170214
Public Body: TUSLA
Section of the Act.: s.37, s.37(1), s.37(7), s.18
Summary: The Senior Investigator varied the decision of the HSE. She found that the HSE was not required, under the provisions of section 10 of the FOI Act, to provide a statement of reasons in respect of certain decisions made by the HSE in respect of funding paid to Rehabcare.
Date: 21-07-2017
Case Number: 170129
Public Body: HSE Dublin Mid-Leinster
Section of the Act.: s.10
Summary: The Senior Investigator annulled the decision of the Council. She found that it had not satisfied this Office that its refusal was justified. She directed the Council to undertake a fresh decision making process on the applicant's request.
Date: 19-07-2017
Case Number: 170090
Public Body: Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council
Section of the Act.: s.2, s.2(5), s.15, s.15(1)(a),
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the Defence Forces. She found that the Defence Forces had justified its decision to refuse to grant the application under section 9 of the FOI Act.
Date: 18-07-2017
Case Number: 170140
Public Body: Defence Forces
Section of the Act.: s.9
Summary: The Senior Investigator found that the OPW was justified in its decision to refuse access to the records on the basis that sections 15(1)(a) and 37 of the FOI Act applied. She affirmed the OPW's decision to refuse access to additional records under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act. She also affirmed its decision to refuse access to records on the basis that section 37(1) of the FOI Act applied, since the withheld information contains the personal information of individuals other than the applicant. She found that the public interest in granting the request did not outweigh the public interest in upholding the privacy rights of those individuals.
Date: 18-07-2017
Case Number: 170163
Public Body: Office of Public Works
Section of the Act.: s.37, s.37(1), s.15
Summary: The Senior Investigator varied the Body's decision. She annulled its effective refusal of access to certain records that came to light during the review, and remitted this matter to the Body for fresh consideration and decision. She affirmed the Body's effective reliance on section 15(1)(a) in refusing to grant access to any further records relevant to this particular request.
Date: 13-07-2017
Case Number: 170091
Public Body: An FOI Body
Section of the Act.:
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the Department. She found that the Department had justified withholding the records under section 30(1)(c).
Date: 13-07-2017
Case Number: 170125
Public Body: Department of Education and Skills
Section of the Act.: s.30, s.30(1),
Summary: The Senior Investigator found that the section 38 requirements were not applied correctly in this case and annulled the decision of the University. She directed it to conduct a new decision making process in compliance with the FOI Act.
Date: 11-07-2017
Case Number: 170332
Public Body: Louth County Council
Section of the Act.: s.38