Save Leitrim Environmental and Biodiversity Company Ltd by Guarantee v Commissioner for Environmental Information

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Humphreys J.
• Judgment Date: 22 October 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IEHC 556
• Docket Number: [H.MCA.2025.0000151]

In the Matter of An Appeal Pursuant to Article 13 of the European Communities (Access to Information on the Environment) Regulations 2007 to 2014

Between

Save Leitrim Environmental and Biodiversity Company Limited by Guarantee

Appellant

and

Commissioner for Environmental Information

Respondent

and

Coillte Cuideachta Ghníomhaíochta Ainmnithe and Ireland and The Attorney General

Notice Parties

[2025] IEHC 556

[H.MCA.2025.0000151]

THE HIGH COURT

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

JUDGMENT of Humphreys J. delivered on Wednesday the 22 ^nd day of October 2025

1 . Even small incentives or disincentives can nudge public behaviour in one direction or another, with significant knock-on effects for society as a whole when multiplied across the population. As the appellant points out, even a €1 or €2 incentive is enough to ensure almost universal return of shopping trolleys, and a €0.15 incentive is enough to ensure a fairly strong take up for recycling of disposable liquid containers. The present case involves a challenge to the EU legality of a relatively modest charge of €15 for the time cost of providing access to environmental information.

Facts

2 . The appellant made a request to Coillte for access to environmental information on 12 July 2023 in relation to:

“Correspondence from August 2022 (including any attachments) between Coillte and Soil Association Certification in connection with the certification audit undertaken by that body of Coillte in and around May 2022.”

3 . A deemed refusal arose on 11 August 2023, because a response was not received within the time limit.

4 . The appellant requested an internal review on 13 August 2023.

5 . Coillte issued an internal review decision on 11 September 2023, granting the request subject to payment of a €30 fee.

6 . On 13 September 2023, Coillte invoiced the appellant for €30 for 1.5 hours spent by Coillte for time spent on search, retrieval and compilation (copying doesn't seem to arise) in respect of the information requested by the appellant. No material costs were charged since the information was supplied in electronic form. The charge is thus framed in terms of time cost – described by the appellant variously as “indirect” or “non-material” costs.

7 . The appellant paid the invoice on or around 9 October 2023.

8 . The appellant received the requested information on 18 October 2023.

9 . The appellant appealed the fee to the commissioner on 22 October 2023 on the basis that:

• (i) the request should not have taken 1.5 hours because it was specific (this wasn't pursued by way of appeal to the court);

• (ii) charges covered information that was already in the public domain (Coillte accepted this ultimately and refunded half of the fee); and

• (iii) the charges were for indirect costs which were precluded having regard to the findings and recommendations of the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee (ACCC) in case ACCC/C/2017/147 §89 – this is the issue now falling for consideration.

10 . The commissioner notified Coillte about the appeal on 25 October 2023, and invited a submission within six weeks.

11 . Coillte made a submission to the commissioner on 7 December 2023, and admitted that it should not have charged to supply information in the public domain and indicated that it would reduce the charge to €15 (as noted above, on the basis that some information was already in the public domain).

12 . The appellant was notified of new material issues by the commissioner on 26 June 2024, including the reduction in the charge.

13 . The appellant replied to the commissioner on 27 June 2024.

14 . The commissioner requested Coillte to make targeted submissions on 16 July 2024.

15 . Coillte responded to the commissioner on 30 August 2024.

16 . The commissioner made his decision on 10 March 2025.

Procedural history

17 . The proceedings were issued by originating notice of motion and grounding affidavit of Justin Warnock on 27 March 2025.

18 . The state parties were joined as the second and third named notice parties by order of the court dated 7 April 2025.

19 . The commissioner filed points of opposition and verifying affidavit of Julie O'Leary on 15 May 2025.

20 . Ireland and the Attorney General filed points of opposition 23 May 2025.

21 . Coillte filed points of opposition and verifying affidavit of Damien Jordan on 28 May 2025.

22 . Coillte wrote to the appellant on 28 May 2025, indicating that it would process the refund of €15 notified to the commissioner on 7 December 2023.

23 . The appellant filed a replying affidavit on 6 June 2025.

24 . The commissioner filed a replying affidavit on 13 June 2025.

25 . Coillte filed a replying affidavit on 24 June 2025.

26 . The appellant filed its written submissions on 25 June 2025.

27 . The commissioner filed its written submissions on 2 July 2025.

28 . The State filed its written submissions on 21 July 2025.

29 . Coillte filed its written submissions on 29 July 2025.

30 . The appellant filed its replying submissions on 1 August 2025.

31 . Based on the submissions, I circulated a suggested issue paper which was discussed at the call over date of 15 September 2025, and the appellant prepared a composite document of summary replies to this issue paper.

32 . The matter was heard on 26 September 2025.

33 . Judgment was reserved at the end of that hearing. I would like to record my thanks to all of the lawyers involved for their unfailingly courteous, professional and helpful assistance. As I have previously sought to make clear, insofar as any points advanced are not being accepted in this or any other given judgment, that is solely to do with the inherent merits of such points and is no reflection on those instructed to convey such points, a distinction that most certainly should be, and I believe generally is in fact, self-evident to all concerned.

34 . On 15 October 2025, a draft of the present judgment was sent to the parties to give an opportunity to identify any errors. The rules of engagement in such a situation are that the draft is without prejudice to the right of the court ultimately to issue a judgment in whatever form or with whatever content it considers appropriate. Any comments must be emailed to the relevant judicial assistant and uploaded to ShareFile in writing within 7 days and should not be to reargue the substance (submissions to that effect will be disregarded) but are confined to matters such as:

• (i) informing the court as to whether a formal judgment is required, and if so on what issues;

• (ii) informing the court as to whether a judgment might be oral or written or partly in both modes;

• (iii) typographical, factual or legal errors in the decision;

• (iv) requesting the court to decide a point that, while obiter/ unnecessary to decide, is one the party considers could beneficially be decided;

• (v) identifying significant points that the party considers that the court was required to address but has not;

• (vi) identifying points that the court proposes to address but that the parties consider it unnecessary to address;

• (vii) in the event that the court proposes to place pivotal reliance on any authority or material not previously adverted to, as opposed to where such material merely reinforces a point that the court was making in any event, any comment as to why such material should not lead to the proposed conclusion; and

• (viii) any suggestions as to the wording (as opposed to substance) of the decision if the proposed wording causes any significant issue for a party for any identified reason.

35 . It is then entirely a matter for the court as to whether to list the matter for mention, or whether to simply give judgment with or without amendment to respond to any such comments or for any other reason that appears appropriate to the court. Any judgment may be given without further notice following the expiry of the 7 day period, whether comments are made or not. That period will not be extended save in exceptional circumstances. All parties involved are requested to positively confirm to the court the position including if they have no observations on the draft legitimately falling within the foregoing parameters. Overall the draft judgment procedure is a concession which parties can engage with but must do so with immediate dispatch, discipline and focus – it is not the opening of a new phase of the litigation that gives rise to “an entitlement to elaborate procedures at every point” (to use a phrase of O'Donnell C.J. (Dunne, Charleton and Baker JJ. concurring) in ( [2023] IESC 11 O'Sullivan v. HSE Unreported, Supreme Court, 10 May 2023) at para. 39).

36 . The mention date to review matters following the foregoing was to be 23 October 2025 but in fact all submissions were duly received by 21 October 2025 so a further mention was unnecessary. The appellant helpfully suggested reformatting of what is now the annex to the judgment. The commissioner suggested an expansion of reference to its arguments which was helpful in terms of setting out the issues and I have included additional material elaborating further on those suggestions.

Relief sought

37 . The reliefs sought in the appellant's notice of motion is as follows:

“1. An Order setting aside the decision of the Commissioner for Environmental Information, the Respondent (the ‘Commissioner’) dated 10 March 2025 reference no. OCE-143263-P9B0N9 (the ‘Decision’).

2. Such declaration(s) of the legal rights and/or legal position of the Appellant and persons similarly situated and/or of the legal duties and/or legal position of the Respondent and/or Notice Party as the Court considers appropriate.

3. A mandatory order requiring the Notice Party (‘Coillte’) to refund €15 to the Appellant

4. A preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union

5. A Declaration that sections 3 and 4 of the Environment (Miscellaneous...