Pollinis v. European Commission

Reference :

2142/2018/EWM

Complaint date :

December 18, 2018

Status :

Final judgment

Place of jurisdiction :

European Union, Strasbourg

Plaintiffs types :

Environmental NGOs

Plaintiffs names :

Pollinis

Defendants :

European Commission

Lawyers for Health and Environmental Justice :

No description

Case nature :

EU court

Type(s), Product(s), Active substance(s) :

Other

Requests :

Public access from the European Commission to documents containing the positions taken by Member States in the SCoPAFF on EFSA’s guidance document concerning the risk assessment of pesticides on bees.

Name of the Court :

European Ombudsman of Strasbourg, European Union

Jurisdiction level :

Decision date :

December 3, 2019

Decision nature :

Positive

Decision content :

The Ombudsman found that the Commission was wrong to refuse access to the documents, because these documents should benefit from the wider public access granted to ‘legislative documents’. She considers that wider public access was needed as the documents contain environmental information. She recommended that the Commission disclose the documents. The new refusal to grant access constitues maladministration.

Legal basis :

Court Ruling :

Link to the ruling

Summary :

The French NGO Pollinis referred to the European Ombudsman for public access to documents containing the positions of Member States within the SCoPAFF (Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed, a permanent committee of the European Commission) on discussions on EFSA’s guidance document concerning the risk assessment of pesticides on bees.

The Commission refused access to the documents. It argued that its rules of procedure require that the positions of individual Member States not be disclosed and that public disclosure of Member States’ positions would prevent Member States from frankly expressing their views. The Ombudsman considered that the documents should benefit from the wider public access granted to ‘legislative documents’. Moreover, she considered that wider public access was needed as the documents contain environmental information. She thus recommended that the Commission disclose the documents. The Commission has chosen not to follow the Ombudsman’s recommendation.

The Ombudsman considerers that transparent decision-making regarding procedures which are of general interest and application is a cornerstone of democracy, especially when the decision-making relates to the protection of the environment. The Ombudsman confirms that the Commission’s continued refusal to grant the complainant access to the requested documents constitutes maladministration.

Scientific references :

No scientifice reference for this case.