Mr MK and the Environmental Protection Agency

• Case Number: CEI/13/0007
• 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 the Environmental Protection Agency

From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)

Case number: CEI/13/0007

Published on 1 October 2015

Appeal to the Commissioner for Environmental Information

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 appellant's 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 that the request did not comply with 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

On 30 April 2013, the appellant made a request to the EPA by email. The EPA made its original decision on 21 May 2013. The applicant sought an internal review on 21 June 2013 by email. The EPA issued its internal review decision on 19 July 2013 in which it affirmed its refusal of the request on the basis that the request did seek access to particular items of environmental information and did not comply with the requirements as set out in Article 6(1)(d) of the Regulations. The applicant submitted an appeal to my Office on 22 August 2013 by email.

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

Original Request

The original request of 30 April 2013 was contained in a twelve page email to the EPA. The email was not sent to the EPA's designated AIE liaison officer, though the applicant had previously been advised of the relevant contact details. It seems to me that applicants who wish to have access to environmental information and have their requests dealt with in a timely and efficient manner would be well advised to contact the designated officer with responsibility for AIE in the first instance. Member States are required by the Directive to make practical arrangements (including the designation of information officers) for the effective exercise of the right to environmental information.

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 70 pages, and seven further submissions were received, one of which ran to 164 pages. He did not appear to address the grounds for refusal by the EPA in his submissions. 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...