31.7.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 249/34

—

annul EFSA’s confirmatory decision of 14 March 2017 with reference PAD 2017/005 CA, confirming its decision of 9 December 2016 and 7 October 2016 with reference PAD 2016/034 to refuse most of the documents requested by the applicants; and

—

order EFSA to pay the costs of the proceedings.

1.

First plea in law, alleging that EFSA violated Article 6(1) of Regulation 1367/2006 (1) by not applying it to the requested information. The exception to disclosure for the protection of ‘commercial interests of a natural or legal person, including intellectual property’, laid down in Article 4(2), first indent, of Regulation 1049/2001 should have been waived by EFSA and not been applied to the requested information, based on Article 6(1) of Regulation 1367/2006.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that EFSA violated Articles 2(4) and 4(2), first indent, of Regulation 1049/2001 (2) and Article 41 of Regulation 178/2002 (3) by refusing to disclose the requested information for the protection of commercial interests of the study-owners, meanwhile not substantiating concrete harm and/or an actual risk to concrete harm, also violating Article 4(4) under d, of the Aarhus Convention, where it is provided that an exception to disclosure may only be granted for protecting the interest of ‘confidentiality of commercial and industrial information, where such confidentiality is protected by law in order to protect a legitimate economic interest’ as no concrete legitimate economic interest has been identified and/or substantiated in the contested measure.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that EFSA incorrectly applied Article 63(2) of Regulation 1107/2009 (4), as this provision does not apply to the requested information and/or the disclosure of the information is of overriding public interest in the sense of Article 63(2) and/or Article 16 of Regulation 1107/2009.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that EFSA violated Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001 by not recognising that there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the studies and by denying the applicants substantiation of an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the studies.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that by omitting to weight the interest of public access to environmental information in the studies against the private interest of companies to protect their commercial interests and/or letting prevail the economic interests of the companies EFSA violated Article 4(2), first indent, of Regulation 1049/2001.

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that as the available data do not permit an independent and complete review of EFSA’s peer review on Glyphosate the applicants have an interest in the disclosure of the studies. By denying the general interest and the applicants’ interest in disclosure of the requested information EFSA has violated its obligations under the Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 and Article 41 of Regulation 178/2002.