Mr MK and Environmental Protection Agency

• Case Number: CEI/13/0017
• Decision Date: 01 October 2015
• Issuer: Environmental Protection Agency
• Applied Rules: Art.6(1)(d), European Communities (Access to Information on the Environment) Regulations, 2007
• Court: Commissioner for Environmental Information

Mr MK and Environmental Protection Agency

From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)

Case number: CEI/13/0017

Published on 1 October 2015

1. Background
2. Scope of Review
3. Preliminary Matters
4. Analysis and Findings
5. Decision
6. Appeal to the High Court

European Communities (Access to Information on the Environment) (AIE) Regulations 2007 to 2014 (the Regulations)

Appellant: Mr MK

Public Authority: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Issue: Whether the EPA was justified in its decision to refuse the request.

Summary of Commissioner's Decision: In accordance with Article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, the Commissioner reviewed the decision of the EPA. He affirmed its decision and found that it was justified in refusing access to the information sought on the grounds of Article 6(1)(d) of the Regulations i.e. the requirement that a request shall state, in terms that are as specific as possible, the environmental information that is the subject of the request.

Background

The appellant made a request to the EPA contained in six emails sent between 14 and 24 June 2013, running to about 90 pages in length. The EPA decision of 15 July 2013 refused the request on the basis that it did not obviously seek access to further particular items of environmental information and did not comply with Article 6(1)(d) of the Regulations. Following intervention by my Office, the EPA accepted an internal review request on 22 August 2013. Four supplementary emails were submitted, amounting to 28 pages in total. The EPA affirmed its original decision on 11 September 2013. The applicant submitted an appeal to my Office on 18 October 2013, in a 123 page email with a 210 page attachment.

I regret the delay that arose in dealing with this appeal, which was due both to resource issues in my Office and to the volume and nature of the applicant's submissions.

I have decided to bring this appeal to a conclusion now by way of a formal, binding decision. In so doing, I have had regard to the submissions of the appellant, in so far as they could be identified as relevant to the appeal, and those of the public authority, and to the provisions of the Regulations. I have also had regard to the Guidance provided by the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government on implementation of the Regulations[the Minister's Guidance]; Directive 2003/4/EC [the Directive], upon which the AIE Regulations are based; and The Aarhus Convention: An Implementation Guide (Second edition, June 2014) [the Aarhus Guide] relating to the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, which is more commonly known as the Aarhus Convention.

Scope of Review

Under Article 12 of the Regulations, I must review the decision of the EPA and affirm, vary or annul it. The question before me is whether the decision of the EPA was justified.

Preliminary Matters

Appellant's submissions

The appellant was invited by my Office, in accordance with normal practice, to make submissions which would be taken into account in dealing with the appeal. His appeal to my Office ran to some 123 pages, not including attachments, and ten further emails were received, one of which ran to over 190 pages. This follow-up activity under the Regulations, taken together with his previous engagement with the EPA, and further to his engagement with my Office in relation to other appeals, was, having regard to my knowledge and experience, and by objective standards, extensive and what might be termed obsessive in nature.

Functions of the Commissioner

While I have no doubt that the matters of which the applicant complains are important and have greatly affected him, my role is confined to adjudicating on his appeal in...