NAMA is a public authority for the purpose of EU Regulations on access to information on the environment

Mr. Justice Colm Mac Eochaidh yesterday ruled that the National Asset Management Agency (or “NAMA”) is a public authority for the purposes of the European Communities (Access to Information on the Environment) Regulations 2007.

The ruling by Mr. Justice Mac Eochaidh is considered as having implications for a range of public authorities.

However, the ruling will have no implication for the Freedom of Information Act, which is due to be amended as part of a process that will include the National Asset Management Agency under the legislation.

The Agency claimed that it was not a public authority within the meaning of the 2007 European regulation. But Mr. Justice Mac Eochaidh said this was “absurd”.

Mr. Justice Mac Eochaidh re-affirmed the ruling of Ms. Emily O’Reilly, Commissioner for Environmental Information, who ruled in September 2011 that the Agency is a public authority within the meaning of the regulation.

An application to remit the matter to the commissioner was yesterday dismissed by Mr. Justice Mac Eochaidh.

Ms. O’Reilly issued her ruling in light of a refusal by the National Asset Management Agency to supply information, sought by a journalist in 2010, on the basis that the Agency is not a public authority within the meaning of the 2007 regulations.

An appeal to the Supreme Court is open to the National Asset Management Agency.

Reasons must be given for administrative decisions

The Supreme Court has rejected the decision of the Minister for Justice not to grant a certificate of naturalisation for Irish citizenship to a Syrian national. The five judge Court held that the Minister was obliged to provide reasons for his refusal, but failed to do so.

Ruling in favour of Ghandi Mallak, Mr. Justice Nial Fennelly observed that the developing law of Irish courts provides "compelling evidence" that it must be unusual for a decision maker to be allowed to refuse to give reasons.

Mr. Justice Fennelly also observed that law serves to provide a remedy where it can be shown that fairness is lacking.

Indeed, administrative decisions are not excluded from review and any opinion formed by the Minister must be held in good faith, factually sustainable and reasonable.

Mr. Mallak and his wife arrived in Ireland in 2002, obtaining asylum in 2003, later applying for a certificate of naturalisation as part of the citizenship process.

However, the first application was rejected because Mr. Mallak was not residing in Ireland long enough. He applied again in December 2005, only to be rejected in November 2008. The Minister did not disclose the reasons.

Documents relating to his case were sought under the Freedom of Information Act, including the reasons for rejecting the application.

Mr. Mallak was informed by the Office of the Information Commissioner that the refusal of the Minister to give reasons was in accordance with section 18 of the Freedom of Information Act.

Additional requests to the Department of Justice disclosed material Mr. Mallak claims he was previously unaware of and, as a result, had no opportunity to meet any adverse findings.

Later, Mr. Mallak appealed the High Court ruling of 2011 to the Supreme Court where Mr. Justice Fennelly observed that the failure to give reasons means it is not possible for Mr. Mallak to decide whether he has a basis for applying for judicial review of the substance of the decision.

The Supreme Court ruling will have implications for other administrative decisions where it can be shown that fairness is lacking.