On Wednesday 23 November, the Court of Justice of the European Union asserted in two different rulings that the European Commission and national authorities cannot invoke the protection of trade or industrial secrecy to refuse the public access to studies carried out by manufacturers of pesticides and used by monitoring agencies to determine the impact of these products on the environment.
The Court therefore confirmed a 2013 ruling by the General Court of the EU that quashed the Commission’s decision to refuse access to the environmental organisations, PAN Europe and Greenpeace Nederland to an assessment report containing information about the exact composition of the pesticide glyphosate (see EUROPE 10939). The Court also made two rulings that day. It reached a decision on the glyphosate case (C-673/13 P) and (C-442/14). The latter, although focusing on different evidence, also involved the right to access documents on environmental questions.
The Court, above all, clarified the notion of “emissions in the environment” and how information relating to it should be accessible to the public. Contrary to the position of the Commission, the Court judges that this notion should be distinguished from the concepts of ‘release’ and ‘discharge’ and cannot be restricted to emissions emanating from industrial installations (such as factories and power stations) but also covers emissions resulting from the spraying of a product, such as a plant protection product or biocide, into the air or its use on plants, in water or on soil.
The Court also confirms that the regulation and directive cover not only information relating to actual emissions, that is to say emissions that are actually released into the environment when a plant protection product or biocide is used on plants or in soil, but also information on foreseeable emissions from that product into the environment.
The public also has the right to check whether the assessment of actual or foreseeable emissions, on the basis of which the competent authority authorised the product or substance in question, is correct, as well as the data relating to the medium or long-term effects of those emissions on the environment.
The two NGOs involved in the glyphosate case were delighted with this ruling. Hans Muilerman, from PAN Europe, explained that “Disclosure of the full tests will show if the summaries presented by industry to governments agree with the outcomes of the original tests conducted” as he considers it obvious that the “Safety tests done by industry on their own products constitute a clear conflict of interest”. Speaking on behalf of Greenpeace EU, Franziska Achterberg explained, “Based on the ruling, national and EU authorities should release these studies automatically, and not only following freedom of information requests”. (Original version in French by Jan Kordys)