Mr. Pat Swords and University College Dublin

• Case Number: CEI/10/0008
• Decision Date: 02 July 2010
• Issuer: University College Dublin
• Applied Rules: Art.7(5), European Communities (Access to Information on the Environment) Regulations, 2007
• Court: Commissioner for Environmental Information

Mr. Pat Swords and University College Dublin

From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)

Case number: CEI/10/0008

Published on 2 July 2010

1. Summary of Commissioner's Decision:
2. Background
3. Scope of Review
4. Analysis and Findings
5. Decision
6. Appeal to the High Court

Appeal to the Commissioner for Environmental Information

European Communities (Access to Information on the Environment) Regulations 2007 (S.I. No. 133 of 2007)

Appellant: Mr. Pat Swords

Public Authority: University College Dublin (UCD)

Issue: Whether UCD was justified in its refusal of access to environmental information comprising (1) "the full technical file developed by UCD", which outlines under EU Directives why the Corrib pipeline is dangerous as stated by a UCD staff member in the letters page of the Irish Times and (2) similar information concerning views expressed by a UCD staff member to the letters page of the Irish Times on the impact of wind generation on electricity prices.

Summary of Commissioner's Decision:

The Commissioner found that UCD was justified in its decision to refuse the request on the basis that it did not hold environmental information within the scope of the request. She found that section 7(5) of the Regulations allows UCD refuse a request on the basis that the information is not held by it

Background

On 28 February 2010, the Applicant sent an email message to UCD referring to letters published in the Irish Times expressing views on the Corrib pipeline and on the impact of wind generation on electricity prices. He requested under the Regulations ''the full technical file developed by UCD which clearly outlines... " according to the relevant legislation and reports'', the reasons for UCD's stated positions on these issues.

On 22 March 2010, one of the UCD staff involved responded stating that the view of An Bord Pleanála on the pipeline was the basis for his use of the word ''dangerous'' in his correspondence. He said that he was a member of UCD staff but that his letter, whilst identifying his academic role, did not infer that he was speaking on behalf of UCD. The Applicant, on 22 March 2010, sought an internal review of that "decision". He also requested an internal review of the deemed refusal arising from the failure to reply to the second part of his request. On 7 May 2010, UCD issued separate internal review decisions refusing the requests on the basis that no records were held of the information sought and article 7(5) of the Regulations applied.

The Applicant, prior to the UCD internal review decisions, forwarded correspondence to my Office, paid the statutory appeal fee and made an appeal under Article 12 of the Regulations.

I have taken account of the submissions of the Applicant and UCD, the Regulations and Directive 2003/4/EC on public access to environmental information (the Directive).

Elizabeth Dolan of my Office, sent to the Applicant on 3 June 2010, a summary of UCD's position in this case. The Applicant responded on the same day and requested that I bring this appeal to a conclusion by way of a formal binding decision.

Scope of Review

Under Article 12 of the Regulations, I must review the decision of UCD and affirm, vary or annul it. I emphasise, as I have had to do in other cases, that it is outside my remit as Commissioner to adjudicate on how public authorities carry out their functions generally.

Applicant's arguments

The Applicant has stressed his disagreement with certain actions and policies of UCD and other public bodies. The Applicant's position is that senior officials in UCD were aware of the letters and should publish in the Irish Times a clarification if it is their case that letters published in UCD's name ''are not belonging to the college''.

UCD's position

UCD accepts that no decision was made on the second part of the request and that the internal review decisions issued...