NAMA vs OCEI – The Story

NAMA vs OCEI – The Story: The core of the argument comes down to legislative interpretation. Myself and Fred Logue (who has kindly given his free time to give huge help on the matter) have argued that the “and includes” part of the legislation when referring to public authorities really does mean “and includes”. NAMA have argued that it effectively means “may include”.
The Commissioner for Environmental Information, Emily O’Reilly, agreed last September with our view. She noted:
The National Asset Management Agency has argued that allowing the word “includes” its ordinary meaning would have the consequence, in the present context, of extending the definition of public authority beyond what is envisaged in the EU Directive. What NAMA proposes is that the plain and ordinary meaning of the word, as used in the Regulations, be set aside in favour of a meaning which implies a restriction rather than an expansion or an inclusion. It is not at all clear that, as Commissioner for Environmental Information, I may abandon the plain language of the Regulations in favour of an interpretation which is arguably more in keeping with the provisions of the Directive. This is particularly the case where the language of the Regulations, in this particular instance, is neither obscure nor ambiguous.?