REFERENCE: CEI/10/00007
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (ACCESS TO INFORMATION ON THE ENVIRONMENT) REGULATIONS
2007
BEFORE
THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
BETWEEN
APPLICANT
GAVIN SHERIDAN
and
PUBLIC AUTHORITY
ANGLO IRISH BANK CORPORATION LIMITED

Introduction
1. The Applicant makes this submission in reply to a submission dated [26 April 2010]
to the Commissioner for Environmental Information (the Commissioner) by Anglo
Irish Bank Corporation Limited (Anglo) which sets out Anglo’s interpretation of the
European Communities (Access to Information on the Environment) Regulations 2007
(the Regulations) and the reasons why Anglo believes that it is not a public authority for
the purposes of the Regulations.
2. The Applicant notes that Anglo has not addressed the issue of how the various
categories of information that have been requested should be treated under the
Regulations and in particular whether or not it would be relying on any of the exemptions
as a basis for refusing access to the information sought. Anglo’s sole argument at this
point is that it is not a public authority and therefore the regulations do not apply at all
to information held by it or on its behalf. Should the Commissioner decide that Anglo
is subject to the Regulations and Anglo makes further submissions in relation to the
information requested the Applicant wishes to be offered the opportunity to make further
submissions before a decision is made by the Commissioner.
Anglo
3. Anglo was established on 21 January 2009 pursuant to the Anglo Irish Bank Corporation
Act 2009 (the Act) in which Anglo Irish Bank Corporation plc was nationalised. The
Minister for Finance or his nominee is the owner of all the shares in Anglo and therefore
Anglo is entirely owned by the State. The nationalisation of Anglo came about because
the government considered that Anglo was systemic to the financial system and
economy of the State, that it was in imminent danger of collapsing and therefore it was in

 the public interest for the bank to be nationalised in order to prevent its collapse and the
perceived harm that this would do to the financial system in Ireland. The long title of the
Act makes this clear:

4. Anglo in its present form exists to serve the public interest by preserving the stability of
the financial system. No other purpose is expressed in the Act. Anglo was nationalised
because it was not viable as a commercial entity due to poor governance resulting
in a significant number of under-performing loans and a damaged reputation which
precipitated a major withdrawal of deposits and closed access to funding and capital1.
Except for the public interest that is served by the continuing existence of Anglo as a
nationalised bank it would have been wound up.
5. The facts do not support the proposition that Anglo is no different than any other
commercial bank and that a key objective of the nationalisation of Anglo “is to reestablish and maintain its capacity to operate as an independent commercial entity2”.
Anglo would not exist except for a massive injection of billions of Euro of state funds
and a state guarantee. In fact the Governor of the Central Bank and the Taoiseach have
stated publicly that Anglo will be wound down as quickly as possible3.
6. The point in relation to Anglo’s public duties will be dealt with in more detail below.
1http://www.angloirishbank.com/Your_Questions_Answered/

General_Information_on_the_Nationalisation.html
2Anglo’s submission page 12
3http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/1130/1224284430926.html

 However the Applicant wishes to emphasise that the notion that except for the question
of ownership of its shares, Anglo is no different from any other bank is unsupportable.
For a Bank that was nationalised to protect the public interest and that has received in
the region of €35 billion in recapitalisation funds from the government, to say it has no
public responsibilities or functions is clearly and plainly mistaken. The Applicant wonders
why Anglo thinks the government would nationalise a bank and spend €35 billion on
recapitalisation if no public purpose was to be served. It is fanciful to think that such a
massive injection of funds has been committed from the public purse simply to ensure
that Anglo may survive as a commercial entity and generate private profits in the future.
Anglo’s Submission
7. Anglo’s makes the following points in its submission:
i.

The definition of public authority in article 3 of the Regulations must be
interpreted in a way that is consistent with constitutional and European law and
therefore sub articles 3(1)(i) to (vii) have no significance; and
ii. Anglo is not a public authority under sub articles 3(1)(a) to (c) since it has no
public functions, is a purely commercial operation and has no specific duties,
activities or services in relation to the environment.
Jurisdiction of the Commissioner
8. Anglo submits that the Commissioner must interpret the Regulations in a manner that
is consistent with Directive 2003/4/EC (the Directive), the Constitution and the EU
Treaties. According to Anglo it would not be permissible for the Minister to either limit
or extend the definition or public authority contained in the Directive and transposed in
article 3(1)(a)-(c) of the Regulations. Therefore Anglo is of the view that the definitions
3(1)(i)-(vii) are provided for clarification but are essentially superfluous since a public
authority must meet one of the definitions in (a) to (c) to be subject to the Regulations.
Anglo is asking the Commissioner to interpret the Regulations in a way that is
inconsistent with the Regulations but gives effect to what it considers the only legal way
in which the Directive could have been transposed.
9. In making its arguments Anglo cites the Commissioner’s previous decision in case CEI/
07/00054. The Applicant wishes to point out that the Taoiseach appealed this decision
to the High Court which in overturning the decision held that the Commissioner does not
have the jurisdiction to interpret the Regulations other than as they have been adopted.
The High Court was emphatic that the Commissioner must take the Regulations as
adopted and is not entitled to consider the legality of the transposition of the Directive5:

4Mr

Gary Fitzgerald BL -v- An Taoiseach
Taoiseach v The Commissioner for Environmental Information [2010] IEHC 241 at para
7.10
5An

 “[The Commissioner] was not entitled to embark on a consideration of whether
the regulations correctly transposed the Directive and she had no jurisdiction to
disapply the Regulations.... The jurisdiction given to her under the laws of this
state was confined to the Regulations and no more.”
10. In other words the Commissioner does not have the jurisdiction to consider whether
or not the Regulations have been correctly or legally transposed nor does she have
jurisdiction to interpret the Regulations other than as they are presented. However this
is precisely what Anglo is asking the Commissioner to do. Its central argument is that it
is not a public authority because sub-articles 3(1)(i) to (vii) are not to be included in the
definition of public authority and are superfluous. Anglo is asking the Commissioner to
disapply the Regulations in favour of what it considers to be the only legal transposition
of the Directive.
11. The Applicant is of the view that the Commissioner does not have the jurisdiction to
consider the Constitutionality of the Regulations, the legality of the transposition nor the
compatibility with the EC Treaties and that Anglo, as a company under the Companies
Act where all the shares are held by the Minister for Finance, clearly is a public authority
due to sub article 3(1)(vii)(I).
Definition of Public Authority
Meaning of “and includes”
12. Anglo’s interpretation of the definition of “public authority” is not supported by the
Directive or its transposition in the Regulations. The definition in article 3 of the
Regulations is constructed as follows:
“public authority” means X and includes Y
where X represents the three types of public authority 3(1)(a) to (c) and Y is a list of
bodies and categories of bodies i.e. 3(1)(i) to (vii) that are included in the definition.
Anglo clearly falls within the definition of 3(1)(vii)(I) since it is a company under the
Companies Acts where all the shares are held by the Minister for Finance or his
nominee.
13. It is a general principle of statutory interpretation that where examples are included at
the end of a provision they may extend but do not limit the meaning of the provision.
Section 11 of the Interpretation Act 2005 places this principle on a statutory footing
where the word “Example” is used in a provision. The same principle applies to the
interpretation of the definition of public authority in the Regulations. Sub-articles 3(1)
(i) to (vii) are provided as examples and are included in the definition. As Anglo points
out the Minister would not be entitled to narrow the definition of public authority unless

 specifically provided for in the Directive, on the other hand and contrary to Anglo’s
submission6 the Directive does allow for Member States to broaden the definition.
Recital 24 of the Directive states:
“The provisions of this Directive shall not affect the right of a Member State to
maintain or introduce measures providing for broader access to information than
required by this Directive.”
Article 3(1)(a), (b) and (c)
14. Without prejudice to the Applicant’s view that Anglo is a public authority by reason of
article 3(1)(vii)(I) he also considers that Anglo is a public authority under articles 3(1)(b)
and/or 3(1)(c). The Applicant agrees with Anglo that it is not a public authority as defined
in article 3(1)(a)
15. Article 3(1)(b) of the Regulations states that “any natural or legal person performing
public administrative functions under national law, including specific duties, activities
or services in relation to the environment” is a public authority. The Applicant wishes
to point out that article 3(1)(b) is not limited to bodies with specific duties, activities or
services in relation to the environment.
16. A number of decisions of the UK Information Tribunal are relevant in terms of providing
guidance on the interpretation of the term “public administrative functions”.The UK
Information Commissioner proposed a two step analysis in its decision FER0265609
(PhonepayPlus)7:
i. Does the body exercise functions that are public in nature?
ii. Are these functions administrative?
17. The answer to both question depends on the facts of each case with no single factor
being decisive. There would appear to be no dispute in relation to whether or not Anglo
is a public body at all, therefore the focus of the analysis rests on whether or not the
functions of Anglo are administrative in nature. The UK Commissioner in PhonepayPlus
went on to characterise administrative functions as follows:
“Administration can be visualised as the managing of power within the state
apparatus and the achievement of a non legal goal through reliance on specific
legal powers.”
19. Clearly Anglo is engaged in managing power within the State apparatus to achieve the
public interest goal of maintaining the stability of the financial system in the State.

6Para
7Para

6.6
30

 20. The UK Information Tribunal provided further guidance in its decision in the Port of
London case8. The analysis of Anglo within the PhonepayPlus and Port of London
framework is relatively straightforward since Anglo has no other purpose other than
to serve the public interest. Its operations only exist due to its nationalisation and due
to the approval of State Aid by the European Commission. The bank operates under
significant constraints set out in the Act and in the European Commission State Aid
decision approving the Eligible Liabilities Guarantee Scheme9. The Central Bank and
the Taoiseach have stated that Anglo will be closed as soon as possible10. The facts do
no support the proposition that Anglo operates or will ever operate as an independent
commercial entity.
21. Anglo has provided some information regarding the relationship framework11 that
existed between Anglo and the Minister to support its proposition that the government’s
objective in nationalising Anglo was to restore it as an independent commercial bank as
quickly as possible. It is now clear in light of public statements from Patrick Honohan,
Governor of the Central Bank, and Taoiseach Brian Cowen that Anglo will be closed
as soon as possible. Accordingly the relationship framework existing between Anglo
and the government has changed since Anglo made its submission and the position as
expressed by Anglo in its submission12 is now out of date and should not be relied upon
by the Commissioner.
22. Even if Anglo was considered to be a commercial bank competing in the market there
is no prohibition on a publicly owned commercial entity having obligations under the
Regulations. For example a local authority which operates a commercial waste service,
and the State forestry agency Coillte, among others.
23. Anglo cites The General Medical Services (Payments) Board -v- Minister for Social
Welfare13 as Irish authority in relation to the definition of public authority. Hamilton J
stated that a public authority has public and statutory duties to perform and performs
these duties and carries out transactions for the benefit of the public and not for private
profit. According to Anglo that since it is a for-profit commercial concern it is not a public
authority. This is a misapplication of the Court’s definition of public authorities. It did not
rule out public profit making bodies being public authorities merely private profit making
concerns. Since Anglo has statutory duties to be performed in the public interest under
the Act and since its profits are not private by reason of the 100% shareholding by the
State, Anglo is a public authority according the Court’s decision in General Medical
8Port

of London Authority v Information Commissioner (EA/2006/0083)
Commission Decision in State Aid case N349/2009 at point 24. Decision available at
http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/comp-2009/n349-09.pdf
1http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/1130/1224284430926.html
1A relationship framework is provided for in Section 3 of the Act.
1Anglo submission, last paragraph on page 12
1[1976-1977] ILRM 210
9European

 Services.
24. Anglo is not correct to claim that it does not perform any “specific duties, activities or
service in relation to the environment”. It is well known that the bulk of Anglo’s activity
consists of providing loans for development land purchases and commercial property
developments. “Environmental information” as defined in article 3 of the Regulations
includes information relating to both land as an element of the environment and to built
structures. Since land and buildings form part of the environment the provision of loans
for the purchase of development land and commercial property development is a specific
service in relation to the environment.
25. The Applicant also wishes to point out that the definition of environmental information
does not exclude financial information or financial activities and specifically includes
economic analyses relating to activities affecting or likely to affect elements of the
environment.
Conclusion
26. For the reasons outlined above Anglo is clearly a public authority under the Regulations
and is therefore obliged to grant the Applicant access to the information requested.
Anglo was incorrect to refuse the Applicant’s request and therefore the Commissioner
should allow this appeal and direct Anglo to grant access to all the information sought.
December 8, 2010