FS50115636: Difference between revisions
From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Alex skene (talk | contribs) XML import |
Alex skene (talk | contribs) CSV import |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{DNSummaryBox | |||
|dn_ref=FS50115636 | |dn_ref=FS50115636 | ||
|dn_date=13 | |dn_date=13 February 2008 | ||
|dn_pa=Ministry of Justice | |dn_pa=Ministry of Justice | ||
|dn_summary= | |dn_summary=The complainant asked the public authority for a complete database data dump in machine-readable format of information from its Statute Law Database editing system or, failing that, from its ‘Documents’ database. The public authority refused the primary request as exceeding the ‘appropriate limit’ of £600, and the alternative request as being exempt under sections 22 and 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Commissioner decided that the primary request was indeed exempt by virtue of section 12, but that neither section 22 nor section 43 applied to the alternative request, which should therefore be disclosed. | ||
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50115636.pdf | |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50115636.pdf | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision1 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 12 | |dnd_section=FOI 12 | ||
|dnd_finding=Not upheld | |dnd_finding=Not upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision2 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 22 | |dnd_section=FOI 22 | ||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision3 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 43 | |dnd_section=FOI 43 | ||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 21:25, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50115636
- Date: 13 February 2008
- Public Authority: Ministry of Justice
- Summary: The complainant asked the public authority for a complete database data dump in machine-readable format of information from its Statute Law Database editing system or, failing that, from its ‘Documents’ database. The public authority refused the primary request as exceeding the ‘appropriate limit’ of £600, and the alternative request as being exempt under sections 22 and 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Commissioner decided that the primary request was indeed exempt by virtue of section 12, but that neither section 22 nor section 43 applied to the alternative request, which should therefore be disclosed.
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
Template:DNDecision1 Template:DNDecision2 Template:DNDecision3
