Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 – ClientEarth and PAN Europe v EFSA
(Case T-214/11) 1
(Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Names of experts who submitted comments on a guidance document relating to the scientific documents to be included in applications for authorisation to place plant protection products and the active substances contained in those products on the market – Refusal of access – Exception concerning protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual – Protection of personal data – Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 – Obligation to state reasons)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom) and Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Kirch, lawyer)
Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (represented by: D. Detken, Agent)
Intervener in support of the defendant : European Commission (represented: initially by P. Oliver, P. Ondrůšek and C. ten Dam, and subsequently by P. Oliver, P. Ondrůšek and B. Martenczuk, Agents)
Re:
Application, initially, for annulment of the EFSA decision of 10 February 2011 refusing an application for access, under 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), to certain working documents relating to a guidance document, prepared by EFSA, for the benefit of applicants for authorisation to place plant protection products on the market and, subsequently, for annulment of EFSA’s decision of 12 December 2011 withdrawing the earlier decision and granting the applicants access to all the information requested, except for the names of the external experts who made certain comments on the draft guidance document.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
Dismisses the action;
Orders ClientEarth and Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe), the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Commission each to bear their own costs.
____________1 OJ C 179, 18.6.2011