The European Commission's appeal to restrict access to documents related to the European Food Safety Authority's (EFSA) 2013 guidance on plant protection products has been dismissed by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). This decision, delivered on 16 January 2025, marks a significant moment in the ongoing debate over transparency and public access to EU documents.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a request by Pollinis France, an environmental NGO, seeking access to documents concerning the EFSA's guidance on the risk assessment of plant protection products on bees. The Commission had initially refused access, citing the protection of its decision-making process under Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001. However, the General Court annulled this decision, leading to the Commission's appeal.
Court's Rationale
The CJEU upheld the General Court's decision, emphasising the importance of transparency in EU institutions. The Court noted that the Commission's decision-making process was not ongoing at the time of the request, as the revision of the guidance document was still pending. Therefore, the exception to public access was not applicable.
Implications for Public Access
This ruling reinforces the principle of openness within the EU, as outlined in Regulation No 1049/2001, which aims to provide the public with the widest possible access to documents. The decision highlights the need for EU institutions to justify any refusal of access with specific and foreseeable risks to their decision-making processes.
Impact on Chemical Legislation
The EFSA's guidance document is crucial for evaluating plant protection products, particularly concerning their impact on bees. This decision ensures that stakeholders, including environmental groups and the public, have access to information that could influence the regulation and use of such chemicals.
Future Considerations
The Commission's discretion in adopting or amending guidance documents remains, but this case sets a precedent for how transparency and public interest are balanced against institutional confidentiality. The decision may prompt a review of how EU bodies handle document access requests, especially those related to environmental and public health matters.
