Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the HPRA. He found that it was justified in its decision to grant access to specific information in the record which the applicant argued to be exempt from release under sections 35 and 36 of the FOI Act.
Date: 19-08-2024
Case Number: OIC-145140-K0S8D5
Public Body: Health Products Regulatory Authority
Section of the Act.: s.35, s.35(1), s.36, s.36(1)(b), s.36(1)(c), s.38, s.38(1),
Summary: The Investigator affirmed BIM’s decision.
Date: 16-08-2024
Case Number: OIC-147927-X7R0Z6
Public Body: An Bord Iascaigh Mhara
Section of the Act.: s.15, s.15(1)(a),
Summary: The Investigator varied the University’s decision. She found that it was not justified in its effective refusal to provide a statement of reasons under section 10 and in its refusal of certain email records as outside scope. She remitted these matters for fresh consideration. She found that the University was justified in refusing access to further records relating to the applicant’s request on the basis of section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act. She found that it was justified in refusing access to certain information on the basis of sections 31(1)(a) and 37(1). She found that it was not justified in refusing access to the remaining information withheld from the records on the basis of sections 29(1), 30(1) and 36(1) and she directed the release of same.
Date: 13-08-2024
Case Number: OIC-144319-H9D2M8
Public Body: University of Limerick
Section of the Act.: s.29,
Summary: Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the 2014 Act, the Senior Investigator varied the Hospital’s decision. He directed it to grant access to the records subject to the redaction of personal information relating to third-parties other than the applicant and/or her deceased mother.
Date: 13-08-2024
Case Number: OIC-143844-J5G6N1
Public Body: St. James's Hospital
Section of the Act.: s.37, s.37(1), s.37(2), s.37(5), s.37(8),
Summary: The Investigator affirmed the Department’s decision, under section 37(1) of the FOI Act, to refuse access to the report. She found that its release would disclose personal information, and that the public interest in favour of release did not outweigh the right to privacy of the individuals involved.
Date: 13-08-2024
Case Number: OIC-144721-B1H6H0
Public Body: Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage
Section of the Act.: s.37, s.37(1), s.37(5)(a),
Summary: The Investigator varied the Council’s decision. She found that sections 37(1) (personal information) and 42(m) (identity of informant) of the FOI Act applied to most of the withheld details, and that, where relevant, the public interest did not weigh in favour of disclosing the details concerned. She found that one record, and most of three others, were not exempt and directed the Council to grant access to them
Date: 12-08-2024
Case Number: OIC-144737-Z2W9L3
Public Body: Roscommon County Council
Section of the Act.: s.32, s.32(1)(a)(i), s.32(1)(a)(ii), s.37, s.37(1), s.42, s.42(m)(i),
Summary: The Investigator affirmed the CCAC’s decision.
Date: 02-08-2024
Case Number: OIC-147936-Q5T6N4
Public Body: Climate Change Advisory Council
Section of the Act.: s.15, s.15(1)(a),
Summary: The Investigator affirmed the decision of the HSE.
Date: 01-08-2024
Case Number: OIC-149263-K3X3G6
Public Body: Health Service Executive
Section of the Act.: s.15, s.15(1)(a), s.37,
Summary: The Investigator affirmed the Council’s decision.
Date: 30-07-2024
Case Number: OIC-143810-C7W7T9
Public Body: Mayo County Council
Section of the Act.: s.15, s.15(1)(a), s.15(1)(d),
Summary: The Investigator affirmed the DPC’s decision.
Date: 30-07-2024
Case Number: OIC-148534-B8S7P2
Public Body: Data Protection Commissioner
Section of the Act.: