Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the Council's decision to refuse access to the 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: 12-06-2017
Case Number: 170101
Public Body: Monaghan County Council
Section of the Act.: s.37
Summary: The Senior Investigator varied the Department's decision. She affirmed its refusal to grant access to most of the withheld records. She found that one record was not subject to the FOI Act further to section 42(f) because it contains legal advice given by the Office of the Attorney General. She found all of the other records to be fully or partially exempt under section 37(1) on the basis that they comprised personal information about identifiable individuals other than the applicant. She found that the public interest in granting access to those records did not outweigh the public interest that the right to privacy of the individuals to whom the information relates should be upheld. She also found those records to be exempt under section 31(1)(a) because, due to ongoing litigation, they attract legal professional privilege. She annulled the Department's refusal to grant access to the remainder of the records and directed their release.
Date: 08-06-2017
Case Number: 160513
Public Body: Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine
Section of the Act.: s.30, s.31, s.32, s.37, s.42
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed NAMA's decision to refuse to grant access to the records concerned. She found them to relate to purchasers or potential purchasers of assets securing loans held or managed by NAMA. She found that, as they are captured by Schedule 1, Part 1(x)(iii) of the FOI Act, they are not subject to the Act.
Date: 08-06-2017
Case Number: 160255
Public Body: National Asset Management Agency
Section of the Act.:
Summary: The Senior Investigator varied the Council's decision. She affirmed its refusal of access to further records under section 15(1)(a) of the Act. She annulled the decision of the Council to refuse records on the basis of section 35(1)(a) and section 36(1)(c), and directed it to undertake a fresh decision making process in respect of the applicant's request.
Date: 06-06-2017
Case Number: 170065
Public Body: Meath County Council
Section of the Act.: s.15, s.35, s.36
Summary: The Commissioner varied the decision of the Central Bank. He largely affirmed the decision to refuse access to the records at issue, finding that Schedule 1, Part 1(b)(i), section 31(1)(a), and section 37(1) of the FOI Act applied as claimed, but annulled the decision in relation to certain redactions and in relation to one record that he directed for release subject to redaction. He also affirmed the Central Bank's decision to refuse access under section 15(1)(a) to three categories of records sought by the applicant.
Date: 02-06-2017
Case Number: 160474
Public Body: The Central Bank of Ireland
Section of the Act.: s.15, s.31, s.35, s.37
Summary: The Senior Investigator varied the VCI's decision. She found that most of the records, including the expert reports, contained the joint personal information of the applicant and other individuals and were exempt from release under sections 37(1) and/or 37(7) of the FOI Act. She found that, on balance, the public interest in granting access to such information did not outweigh the public interest in refusing to grant it. However, she found that parts of the records were not exempt under section 37 or otherwise and directed their release.
Date: 31-05-2017
Case Number: 170029
Public Body: Veterinary Council of Ireland
Section of the Act.: s.29, s.30, s.37
Summary: The Senior Investigator found that the section 38 requirements were not applied correctly in this case and annulled the decision of the Department.
Date: 31-05-2017
Case Number: 170170
Public Body: Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport
Section of the Act.:
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the Council.
Date: 30-05-2017
Case Number: 170056
Public Body: Clare County Council
Section of the Act.: s.15, s.15(1)(a), s.15(1)(d), s.15(2),
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the Department's decision under section 15(1)(a) and section 31(1)(a) of the FOI Act.
Date: 26-05-2017
Case Number: 170051
Public Body: Department of Social Protection
Section of the Act.: s.15, s.15(1)(a), s.31,
Summary: The Senior Investigator varied the Department's decision as follows. She directed it to obtain a further record identified during this review from GoSafe, a service provider under section 11(9), and to make a decision on that part of the applicant's FOI request, in accordance with the provisions of the FOI Act. She affirmed the Department's decision to withhold access to certain information which she found to be commercially sensitive, under section 36(1)(b) of the FOI Act. She found that the Department was not justified in refusing access to the remaining information, under sections 32, 35 or 36 of the FOI Act and she directed the release of that information
Date: 25-05-2017
Case Number: 160427
Public Body: Department of Justice and Equality
Section of the Act.: s.35, s.35(1), s.35(2), s.11, s.32, s.36