CJEU - C-470/19 - Friends of the Irish Environment
| CJEU - C-470/19 Friends of the Irish Environment | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court: | CJEU |
| Jurisdiction: | European Union |
| Relevant Law: | Article 2, Directive 2003/4/EC |
| Decided: | |
| Parties: | Friends of the Irish Environment |
| Case Number/Name: | C-470/19 Friends of the Irish Environment |
| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EU:C:2021:271 |
| Reference from: | High Court (Ireland) IEHC 747 |
| Language: | 24 EU Languages |
| Original Source: | Judgement |
| Initial Contributor: | lm |
The CJEU held that rights of access to information relating to the environmental pursuant to Directive 2003/4 do not extend to environmental information contained in court files where the courts are not 'public authorities' with environmental responsibilities.
English Summary
Facts
In February 2016, the High Court of Ireland delivered judgment in the case of X & Y v. An Bord Pleanála. On 9 July 2016, Friends of the Irish Environment requested copies of the pleadings, affidavits, documents and written observations lodged by parties in the case. It made the request under Irish national rules transposing the Aarhus Convention and Directive 2003/4.
In its 13 July 2016 decision, the Courts Service rejected the request. It determined that Irish national rules did not cover legal proceedings or documents produced therein. FIE requested that the Court Service review the decision but received no reply.
On 15 September 2016, FIE brought an action before the Commissioner for Environmental Information. The Commissioner for Environmental Services ultimately dismissed the action, considering that the Courts Service held the cases requested in the exercise of judicial powers, and when exercising such powers, it was not a 'public authority' within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the Irish national rules due to a derogation for bodies 'acting in the exercise of judicial powers' provided in Article 3(2) of the national rules and Article 2(2) of Directive 2003/4.
FIE challenged the Commissioner for Environmental Information's decision before the High Court, claiming that the derogation did not cover files in closed cases. The High Court stayed the proceedings and referred the question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. It asked whether Article 2(2) of Directive 2003/4's exclusion of institutions acting in a judicial capacity from the definition of 'public authorities' does or does not include closed proceedings.
Holding
The CJEU held that Article 2(2) of Directive 2003/4 does not govern access to environmental information contained in court files, where neither courts nor bodies under their control constitute public authorities and are thus exempted from the Directive's scope.
The CJEU considered the questions of whether the review of access to court files constitutes an exercise of judicial powers and of whether the files containing the information pertain to pending or closed proceedings to be irrelevant. Instead, the relevant question is whether the body or entity acts in a judicial capacity.
It noted that the purpose of the Aarhus Convention and Directive 2003/4 was to designate administrative authorities to hold environmental information. Courts, the CJEU considered, do not perform public administrative functions or have public responsibilities that relate to the environment.
Comment
Share your comments here!
Further Resources
Share blogs or news articles here!
