Action brought on 11 April 2011 - ClientEarth and PAN Europe v EFSA

(Case T-214/11)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom) and Pesticides Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Kirch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

Form of order sought

Declare the defendant in violation of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters;

declare the defendant in violation of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006¹;

declare the defendant in violation of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001²;

Annul the negative reply by which the defendant withheld the requested documents; and

Order the defendant to pay the applicants' costs, including the costs of any intervening party.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of their application, the applicants seek, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, the annulment of the negative reply of European Food Safety Authority to their request for access to document, thereby withholding intermediate drafts and the scientific advice from EFSA's Pesticides Steering Committee (PSC) and Plant protection products and their residues (PPR) Panel relating to the Guidance on the submission of scientific peer-reviewed open literature for the approval of pesticide active substances under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009³.

In support of their action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates Articles 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 for not replying within the prescribed time limits to the applicants' confirmatory application and not providing detailed reasons for doing so.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates Article 4(1)(2)(3) and (4) of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters for failure to provide the applicants access to the requested drafts and the scientific advice on EFSA's Guidance. The contested decision also violates Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 for failure to interpret the exceptions provided under Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in a restrictive way.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates Article 4(3) second subparagraph of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 for failure to demonstrate that the disclosure of the requested documents would seriously undermine EFSA's internal decision-making, particularly after the decision has been taken.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates Article 4(3) second subparagraph of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 for failure to assess whether there is an overriding public interest in disclosure and to provide a detailed statement of reasons for such a refusal.

____________

¹ - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13)

² - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43)

³ - Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ 2009 L 309, p. 1)