United States: The Glyphosate Judgment:* Goodbye Confidentiality?

Last Updated: January 6 2014
Article by Darren Abrahams


A recent judgment by the EU General Court demonstrates a willingness to expand the circumstances where the right to environmental information trumps the right to protection of commercial interests. The case arose from a request by two environmental NGOs to access information held by the European Commission (Commission), originally submitted in support of the first approval of glyphosate as an active substance in agricultural pesticides1. However, the ruling has potentially far wider implications for the chemicals sector and industry generally. It:

  • Renders data submitters fearful of providing information to EU institutions and agencies
  • Invites market competitors to test the extent to which they may be able to access confidential information submitted by rivals
  • Frustrates the work of EU and national institutions and bodies, tasked with gathering information as part of pre-marketing authorisation regimes and/or providing effective oversight - since operators will be reluctant to submit information beyond the minimum required to maintain lawful market access

A near "open season" is underway on access to document cases. Accordingly, information submitters should resist the temptation to submit more than is necessary. All documentation should bear appropriate language affirming at least a right to be consulted. Submitters should also consider putting authorities on notice of their views on the impact and potential financial harm resulting from disclosure. This case will place even more focus on the stalled procedure for the revision of the Access to Documents (ATD) Regulation2 and the form of access to information rules in sector-specific legislation.


The Access to Documents Regulation

The ATD Regulation confers a right on the public to seek access to documents (as distinct from pieces of information), held by the Commission, Parliament and Council. It has also been applied to EU bodies such as the European Medicines Agency (EMA), European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). All three aforementioned institutions3 and agencies4 have faced litigation on access to documents. Litigation in this area is widespread because unsuccessful applicants for access to documents are granted an automatic right5 to recourse before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)6. Most NGOs would otherwise not satisfy the conditions for standing (locus standi) before the CJEU. Applicants for access to documents are not obliged to state reasons for an application, making the regime both a source of litigation, and a tool to gain access to materials supporting ongoing or anticipated litigation.

Article 4 of the ATD Regulation provides for a series of exceptions to protect specified "public and private interests"7 where disclosure is not permitted, including situations "where disclosure would undermine the protection of commercial interests of a natural or legal person, including intellectual property ... unless there is an overriding public interest in disclosure." This was invoked by the Commission in the Glyphosate case as a reason for non-disclosure.8

Aarhus Implementing Regulation

The Aarhus Implementing Regulation 9 provides that requests for access to "environmental information" (not necessarily in the form of specific documents) held by EU institutions or bodies are to be treated within the framework of the ATD Regulation. The definition of "environmental information" (both in the Aarhus Implementing Regulation10, at the level of EU institutions and bodies, and the Public Access to Environmental Information Directive which applies in all EU member states11) is extremely wide, covering "any information in written, visual, aural, electronic or any other material form on:

  1. the state of the elements of the environment, such as air and atmosphere, water, soil, land, landscape and natural sites including wetlands, coastal and marine areas, biological diversity and its components, including genetically modified organisms, and the interaction among these elements;
  2. factors, such as substances, energy, noise, radiation or waste, including radioactive waste, emissions, discharges and other releases into the environment, affecting or likely to affect the elements of the environment referred to in point (i);
  3. measures (including administrative measures), such as policies, legislation, plans, programmes, environmental agreements, and activities affecting or likely to affect the elements and factors referred to in points (i) and (ii) as well as measures or activities designed to protect those elements;
  4. reports on the implementation of environmental legislation;
  5. cost-benefit and other economic analyses and assumptions used within the framework of the measures and activities referred to in point (iii);
  6. the state of human health and safety, including the contamination of the food chain, where relevant, conditions of human life, cultural sites and built structures in as much as they are or may be affected by the state of the elements of the environment referred to in point (i) or, through those elements, by any of the matters referred to in points (ii) and (iii)."

Article 6(1) of the Aarhus Implementing Regulation provides that where disclosure would undermine the protection of commercial interests, there is nonetheless deemed to be an overriding public interest in disclosure if the information "relates to emissions into the environment". The term "emissions into the environment" is not defined in the Aarhus Implementing Regulation or the Aarhus Convention on which the former is based, but it is clear that information on "emissions into the environment" is a distinct subset of "environmental information". The Glyphosate case is the first to provide an analysis of the scope of this key term.


The General Court rejected the Commission's reasons for refusing to disclose12:

  • Data which concerns "the identification and the quantity of various impurities present in the active substance notified by each of the operators which took part in the procedure for the inclusion of glyphosate in Annex I of Directive 91/414"13
  • "The analytical profile of batches tested": "information concerning the quantity of all the impurities present in the various lots and the minimum, median and maximum quantity of each of those impurities ..." set out, for each operator14
  • "The composition of plant protection products developed by the operators which applied for the inclusion of glyphosate in Annex I to Directive 91/414 ... the exact quantities, per kilogramme or per litre, of the active substance and of adjuvants used in their manufacture [of which were] ... indicated [in the requested documents] ..."15

The Commission characterised this information as "relating to the manufacturing processes used by the various operators that notified glyphosate ... [which] would make it possible to reconstitute the manufacturing process of the active substance ...". It also noted that all of the relevant information from a toxicological perspective and as regards the effect of the active substance on human health had already been disclosed.16

There are three important stages in the General Court's reasoning:

  1. It shows a willingness to define the key term, "emissions into the environment" through a process of extrapolation. For each category of information which the General Court found was withheld for insufficient reasons, it concluded that it related "in a sufficiently direct manner to emissions into the environment" – a proximity test. The starting point for the General Court's analysis appears to have been that "since the active substance must be included in a plant protection product, which, it is common ground, will be released into the air, principally by spraying ..."17
  2. Applying the same proximity analysis, the General Court concluded that two classes of information did not concern "emissions into the environment":

    • The "structural formulas of impurities"18
    • "Methods of analysis and validation"19 of the data provided to establish the analytical profile of batches

    In the latter case, the General Court explicitly articulated that the information did not contain "... information allowing the determination, in a sufficiently direct manner, of the level of emission into the environment of the various components of the active substance"20.

  3. The General Court confirmed that, on a plain reading of the legislative texts, Article 6(1) of the Aarhus Implementing Regulation "... requires that if the institution concerned receives an application for access to a document, it must disclose it where the information requested relates to emissions into the environment, even if such disclosure is liable to undermine the protection of the commercial interests of a particular natural or legal person, including that person's intellectual property, within the meaning of Article 4(2), first indent, of Regulation No 1049/2001"21. This is described as an "irrebuttable presumption"22.

Interpretive Approach

The General Court appears to have been influenced in its reasoning process by the fact that the Commission did not argue that Article 6(1) of the Aarhus Implementing Regulation conflicts with a "superior rule of law"23. This might be: (1) primary EU law contained in the Treaties; (2) general principles of EU law developed through case law (such as the protection of business secrets); (3) rights articulated in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU; or (4) undertakings by the EU in international law (aside from the Aarhus Convention)24.

The General Court expressly considered the impact of Articles 16 (freedom to conduct a business) and 17 (right to property) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, as well as Articles 39(2) and 39(3) of the WTO TRIPS Agreement (protection of commercially valuable information from public disclosure). It did not consider other material superior rules of law (aspects apparently not raised in argument) such as Article 339 of the TFEU (the obligation on institutions of the Union "not to disclose information of the kind covered by the obligation of professional secrecy, in particular information about undertakings, their business relations or their cost components") and Article 41 of the Charter (the right to "good administration", which includes "respecting the legitimate interest of confidentiality and professional and business secrecy").

In any event, the aspects considered by the General Court were examined only as an aid to interpretation of secondary EU law (the confidentiality provisions in Directive 91/414, the ATD Regulation and the Aarhus Implementing Regulation). The General Court was not prepared to undertake what it characterised as "disapplying a clear and unconditional provision"25 of the Aarhus Implementing Regulation - the Article 6(1) deemed overriding public interest. In a striking assertion, the General Court stated, regarding the confidentiality provisions in Directive 91/414, that it "suffices to note that the existence of such rules cannot rebut the irrebuttable presumption arising from Article 6(1)".26

A preferable approach would have been to interpret the relationship between the Aarhus Implementing Regulation and the confidentiality provisions in Directive 91/414 in a consistent manner, acknowledging the clear (sector-specific) legislative intention to protect certain information from disclosure. The Court of Justice has shown a receptiveness to this general approach in its review of the relationship between the (specific) EU regime on Emissions Trading and the (general) access to environmental information regime in Case C-524/09 - Ville de Lyon. The deemed public interest in Article 6(1) would remain applicable in situations where the legislator has not provided regime-specific rules on the sharing and protection of confidentiality.

Validity of the Aarhus Implementing Regulation

Having taken the interpretive approach summarised above, the General Court did not look at superior rules of law in order to assess the validity of Article 6(1) so that it might annul it if necessary. Arguably, the issue of validity with primary EU law is a matter of public policy given that the limits of access to environmental information are at issue. It was apparent, on the facts before the General Court, that the scope of Article 6(1) of the Aarhus Implementing Regulation has implications which go far beyond the world of agricultural pesticides, even if the immediate impact concerns that sector. The matter was therefore a strong candidate for being raised by the General Court of its own motion.27


The expansive approach to the definition of "emissions into the environment" suggested by the General Court goes beyond the mandatory disclosure of information on an actual release itself - which is more amenable to consistent application. The approach suggested by the General Court - inviting disclosure of technical information which defines the manufacturing method and compositional properties of a product - reflects a more "catch all" approach. Since "emissions into the environment" is a subset of environmental information, it cannot cover information relating to any presence or exposure (or the possibility thereof) in the environment or parts hereof. All substances enter the environment at some time during their life cycle. This leads to the conclusion that the definition must be narrowly construed if the exceptions to disclosure are ever to be applicable.

Next Steps

The Commission is understood to have decided to appeal to the Court of Justice.28 Industry stakeholders would also be able to intervene in these proceedings if they are directly affected by the judgment of the General Court29 and would be well-advised to do so given the potential commercial ramifications. EU member states may also intervene and have an interest in so doing given that the same issues arise in the context of the Public Access to Environmental Information Directive.

Appeals do not have automatic suspensory effect30 (the General Court's judgement would stand, pending a decision on an appeal) but an application for interim measures31 (suspending the General Court's judgment) may be made. The threshold test for interim measures is essentially that the applicant must prove: (i) urgency; (ii) generally, the establishment of a prima facie case; and (iii) that the balance of the parties" interests in the case requires interim measures (a proportionality test). The first of these is often the biggest hurdle because the CJEU's case law requires that interim measures may only be granted to prevent serious and irreparable damage to the party requesting them, (i.e. the decision on the matter cannot await an outcome in the main proceedings - which may take several years). The CJEU has also taken the approach that while a purely financial loss is not irreparable (since damages would remedy this), irreversible damage to market share could be sufficient to demonstrate urgency. Finally, a request for an expedited procedure32 is also possible, and if granted, exceptionally, can cut down the time it takes to conclude an appeal to less than six months.


* Case T-545/11 - Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and PAN Europe v Commission.

1 Inclusion in Annex I to the now repealed Directive 91/414 on Plant Protection Products.

2 Regulation 1049/2001.

3 See, for example, Case T-190/10 - Egan and Hackett v Parliament; T-561/12 - Jürgen Beninca v European Commission; and C-576/12 P - Juraainović v Council.

4 T-214/11 - ClientEarth and Pesticides Action Network Europe (PAN Europe ) v EFSA; T-245/11 - ClientEarth and International Chemical Secretariat v ECHA; and Case T-73/13 - InterMune UK and Others v EMA.

5 Article 8 of the ATD Regulation.

6 The CJEU is composed of the first instance General Court and the final court of appeal, the Court of Justice.

7 Recital 11 to the ATD Regulation.

8 Paragraph 7 of the judgment. A diagram setting out the range of Article 4 exceptions to disclosure is hereby appended.

9 Regulation 1367/2006, implementing the "United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters".

10 Definition in Article 2(1)(d).

11 Directive 2003/4/EC, Article 2(1).

12 This information was included in volume 4 of the Draft Assessment Report (DAR), issued by the German rapporteur.

13 Paragraph 69 of the judgment.

14 Paragraph 71 of the judgment.

15 Paragraph 73 of the judgment.

16 Paragraph 64 of the judgment.

17 Paragraph 69 of the judgment.

18 Paragraph 71 of the judgment

19 Paragraph 72 of the judgment.

20 Paragraph 72 of the judgment.

21 Paragraph 38 of the judgment.

22 Paragraph 45 of the judgment.

23 Paragraph 44 of the judgment.

24 The decision to approve an international agreement concluded by the EU (such as the Aarhus Convention) which runs counter to a general principle of EU law may be annulled (Case C-122/95 – Germany v Council).

25 Paragraph 44 of the judgment.

26 Paragraph 40 of the judgment.

27 On this possibility see: Case T-160/08 P - Commission v Putterie-De-Beukelaer, paragraphs 58 to 60 and 67; and Case C-386/10 P - Chalkor v Commission, paragraph 64.

28 The deadline for submitting an appeal is December 18, 2013.

29 Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union. However the timeline for so doing is only 1 month and 10 days from publication in the Official Journal of the EU (see Article 190(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice).

30 Article 60 of the Statute of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

31 Articles 160 and 190 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice. Whilst each case turns on its particular facts, there are three recent (albeit unusual) successes in the plant protection sector which are noteworthy: (1) Case T-95/09 R - United Phosphorus Ltd v European Commission, where the Court suspended a decision concerning the non-inclusion of napropamide in Annex I to Directive 91/414; (2) Case T-31/07 R - Dupont v European Commission, where the Court suspended the expiry period on the inclusion of flusilazole in Annex I to Directive 91/414; and (3) Case C-365/03 P(R) - Industrias Químicas del Vallés SA v European Commission, where the Court suspended a decision concerning the non-inclusion of metalaxyl in Annex I to Directive 91/414.

32 Articles 133 and 190 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Darren Abrahams
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


From time to time Mondaq may send you emails promoting Mondaq services including new services. You may opt out of receiving such emails by clicking below.

*** If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here .


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.