—

Does paragraph 3(k) of that article, which provides that after the marketing authorisation for the biocidal product has been granted, confidentiality does not in any case apply to the ‘methods of analysis referred to in Article 5(1)(c)’, allow the applicant to obtain any detailed information on those methods, even if its disclosure could endanger trade secrets, or only general information on the nature of those methods and any conclusions that may be drawn from them?

—

Do the ‘physical and chemical data concerning the active substance and biocidal product’, which cannot be kept confidential after the authorisation has been granted under Article 19(3)(f), allow the applicant to request the disclosure of detailed data on the composition of the active substance or biocidal product, even if they may directly or indirectly reveal the manufacturing processes?

—

Did the EU legislature, by Articles 66 and 67 of that regulation, which do not refer to Directive 2003/4, intend to define a specific and comprehensive regime for the communication to the public of information on biocidal products and their active substances, and thus disapply the provisions of Directive 2003/4 in so far as they provide, on the one hand, that a trade secret may not prevent the communication of information on emissions into the environment and, on the other hand, that if the disclosure of other environmental information could harm the commercial interests of an undertaking, the competent administrative authority must, prior to any refusal of communication, weigh the interest of that undertaking against the public interest?

—

Is the communication of an assessment report on the technical equivalence between an approved active substance and the active substance contained in a biocidal product, prepared in the context of an application for marketing authorisation for that product, governed by Article 67(3)(e) of Regulation No 528/2012, which provides for the publication of the assessment report on approved active substances unless confidential treatment is requested by the applicant, by Article 67(4)(b), which provides for the publication of the assessment report on an authorised biocidal product unless confidential treatment is requested by the applicant, or by other rules?

—

Does Article 66(3)(j) of Regulation No 528/2012, which provides that after the authorisation to place a biocidal product on the market has been granted, access to the ‘methods of analysis referred to in Article 19(1)(c)’ shall not ‘in any case be refused’, allow any detailed information on those methods to be obtained, even if its disclosure could endanger trade secrets, or only general information on the nature of those methods and any conclusions that may be drawn from them?

—

Is Article 67(1)(h) of the same regulation, which provides that from the date of approval of an active substance, the ‘analytical methods referred to under … Section 4.2 of Title 2 of Annex II’ are to be made publicly available free of charge, to be interpreted as actually referring to the provisions of Section 4.3 of Title 2 of Annex II, to which it referred before the intervention of Commission Delegated Regulation of 19 October 2020 amending Annexes II and III to Regulation No 528/2012 (4)? If those provisions are to be interpreted as referring to the provisions currently in force of Section 4.2 of Title 2 of Annex II, and assuming those provisions apply to an active substance which has not been approved but is recognised as technically equivalent to an approved active substance, does the communicability in principle of the ‘analytical methods for the analysis of the micro-organism as manufactured’ mentioned in Section 4.2 allow the applicant to obtain any detailed information on those methods, even if its disclosure could endanger trade secrets, or only general information on the nature of those methods and any conclusions that may be drawn from them?