Decisions of the Information Commissioner

The Investigator affirmed the HSE's decisions.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the FSPO.

The Investigator affirmed the decision of Tusla

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the CRO.

The Investigator affirmed Revenue's decision. She found that it was justified in refusing access to the records concerned on the basis of section 37 of the FOI Act. She found that the public interest, on balance, did not favour the release of the information concerned.

The Senior Investigator varied the decision of the Council. He found that the Council was justified in refusing access to certain records on the basis of sections 15(1)(d), 31(1) and 37(1) of the FOI Act. He found that the Council was not justified in refusing access to other records on the basis of section 31(1) and that it was not justified in refusing access to certain records on the basis of section 29(1) of the FOI Act. He directed their release, subject to the redaction of personal information.

The Investigator affirmed the Departments' decisions to refuse access to certain records under section 37(1) of the Act.

The Senior Investigator varied the HSE's decision. He found that it failed to have regard to the requirements of section 27(3)(b), which provides that the total amount of a charge under section 27(1) shall not exceed the prescribed maximum amount which is currently 500 euro. He found that the HSE was not entitled to charge a fee of 600 euro but was, however, entitled to charge a fee of 500 euro.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the Department's decision.

The Senior Investigator annulled the decision of the Council and directed it to conduct a fresh decision making process on the request.