# C_2022191EN.01001301.xml

| 10.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/13

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Irlande) made on 8 February 2022 — Right to Know CLG v An Taoiseach

(Case C-84/22)

(2022/C 191/17)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court (Irlande)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Right to Know CLG

Respondent: An Taoiseach

Questions referred

| 1. | Are records of formal meetings of the executive branch of government of a Member State, at which members of the government are required to meet and act as a collective authority, to be characterised, for the purpose of a request for access to environmental information contained therein, as ‘internal communications’ or as ‘proceedings’ of a public authority within the meaning of those terms as set out, respectively, in Article 4(1)(e) and Article 4(2), first paragraph, indent (a), respectively, of Directive 2003/4/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are records of formal meetings of the executive branch of government of a Member State, at which members of the government are required to meet and act as a collective authority, to be characterised, for the purpose of a request for access to environmental information contained therein, as ‘internal communications’ or as ‘proceedings’ of a public authority within the meaning of those terms as set out, respectively, in Article 4(1)(e) and Article 4(2), first paragraph, indent (a), respectively, of Directive 2003/4/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC?

| 2. | Does the principle of res judicata (as discussed in Köbler, Case C-224/01 (2), and subsequent case law) extend beyond the operative or dispositive part of the earlier judgment, and include, in addition, findings of fact and law featuring in the earlier judgment? Put otherwise, is the principle of res judicata confined to cause of action estoppel, or does it extend to issue estoppel? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the principle of res judicata (as discussed in Köbler, Case C-224/01 (2), and subsequent case law) extend beyond the operative or dispositive part of the earlier judgment, and include, in addition, findings of fact and law featuring in the earlier judgment? Put otherwise, is the principle of res judicata confined to cause of action estoppel, or does it extend to issue estoppel?

| 3. | In ongoing proceedings between parties regarding alleged non-compliance with Directive 2003/4/EC concerning a specific request for environmental information, where an applicant/requester has succeeded in having a decision quashed with some grounds of challenge based on EU law upheld and others rejected, does EU law, and in particular, the principle of effectiveness preclude a national rule of res judicata based on issue estoppel that requires a national court, in fresh proceedings concerning a further decision on the same request, to exclude such an applicant/requester from challenging the said further decision on EU-law based grounds that were previously rejected but not, in the circumstances, appealed? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In ongoing proceedings between parties regarding alleged non-compliance with Directive 2003/4/EC concerning a specific request for environmental information, where an applicant/requester has succeeded in having a decision quashed with some grounds of challenge based on EU law upheld and others rejected, does EU law, and in particular, the principle of effectiveness preclude a national rule of res judicata based on issue estoppel that requires a national court, in fresh proceedings concerning a further decision on the same request, to exclude such an applicant/requester from challenging the said further decision on EU-law based grounds that were previously rejected but not, in the circumstances, appealed?

| 4. | Is the answer to Question (3) above affected by the facts that: (i) no reference was made to the Court of Justice; and (ii) relevant case law of the Court of Justice had not been brought to the national court’s attention by either of the parties? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is the answer to Question (3) above affected by the facts that: (i) no reference was made to the Court of Justice; and (ii) relevant case law of the Court of Justice had not been brought to the national court’s attention by either of the parties?

---

(1)  OJ 2003, L 41, p. 26.

(2)  Judgment of 30 September 2003 (EU:C:2003:513)

---