5. 6. 89 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 139/47 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on the freedom of access to information on 
the environment (*) 
(89/C 139/13) 
On 14 November 1988 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Article 130 s of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Protection of the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Affairs, which 
was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 
28 February 1989. The rapporteur was Mr Boisseree. 
At its 264th plenary session (meeting of 31 March 1989) the Committee adopted the following 
Opinion by 32 votes to three with 13 abstentions. 
This proposal seeks to give the public the right of free 
access to environmental information held by official 
agencies in the Member States at national, regional and 
local levels. 
Most Member States already have some provisions on 
making such information available to the public, but 
these vary widely between countries. The new proposal 
aims to establish a uniform basis. 
Member States would also be required to publish reg­
ular reports on the environment. 
1. General comments on the proposal 
1.1. The Economic and Social Committee welcomes 
in principle all measures which promote environmental 
protection and awareness, including those designed to 
provide the public with more information about devel­
opments in the environmental sector. The Committee 
consequently made the following statement in para­
graphs 2.1.6.4 and 2.1.6.5 of its Opinion of 13 May 
1987 (2) on the draft fourth environmental action pro­
gramme: 
'The Committee advocates an open debate on the 
environment and a high level of public participation 
in the environmental decision-making process. In 
the case of projects which have repercussions in 
other countries, special attention should be paid 
to ensuring that the local communities in those 
countries are involved at an early stage and on an 
equal footing in decision-making. 
The Committee supports the Commission's pro­
posals for the provision of more information on the 
environment and for improved cooperation with 
environmental associations, non-governmental 
organizations and other bodies involved. With this 
aim in view it is important to give the members of 
the public concerned an insight into the preparatory 
work on environmental protection undertaken by 
the Commission and into the results of the monitor­
ing at European level of environmental protection 
measures.' 
(!) OJ No C 335, 30. 12. 1988, p. 5. 
(2) OJ No C 180, 8. 7. 1987. 1.2. On the basis of the Committee's Opinion on the 
fourth action programme, the present proposal prompts 
the following comments. 
1.2.1. Community rules and regulations on access to 
environmental information would seem to be vital in 
order to ensure the exchange of information across 
national frontiers; they are also necessary if information 
is to be required from Community authorities. How­
ever, there is a place too for national rules and regu­
lations, especially as national law mainly determines 
the question of which information is available from 
national authorities and corporations for disclosure on 
request; the draft Directive therefore cannot achieve 
total harmonization. 
To this extent the case for Community rules and regu­
lations under Article 130r(4) of the EEC Treaty should 
be reconsidered. 
1.2.2. At all events, since the Directive overlaps with 
Member States' administrative laws, it should be 
drafted in such a way that it does not interfere with 
more stringent national provisions—in accordance with 
Article 130t of the EEC Treaty—especially as there is 
little danger of the distortions of competition referred 
to by the Commission in its explanatory memorandum. 
The draft Directive refers only to the information which 
public authorities and corporations will be required to 
supply. 
1.2.3. Apart from guaranteeing individuals the right 
to have access to information and to inspect records or 
files, it is at least just as important—the Committee 
thinks—for public authorities and corporations to have 
active policies for supplying the public with information 
about the environment. On this point the proposal 
merely includes the rule in Article 9 about the publi­
cation every three years of national reports on the state 
of the environment. However, individual Community 
Directives (the 'Seveso' Directive, the Directive on 
environmental impact assessment) stipulate that local 
and regional bodies are to provide the general public 
with special information. The Committee would reiter­
ate the view expressed in its Opinion on the fourth 
No C 139/48 Official Journal of the European Communities 5. 6. 89 
environmental action programme {cf. 1.1 above) that 
local and regional authorities should be obliged to 
publish information regularly about the state of the 
environment in their area in accordance with uniform 
criteria. This 'active' information could be provided by 
special information offices established by the Member 
States or telephone information services. Some Member 
States have had good experiences with such services as 
a means of dispelling fear or uncertainty in people's 
minds. 
1.3. The draft Directive's scope is confined to Mem­
ber States' public authorities, corporations, etc. If the 
need for a Directive of this kind is recognized, there is 
an equally strong need for Community bodies and 
authorities to provide access to information. The Com­
mittee sees no reason for putting off this legislation 
until a later date {cf 2.1.6.5 of the Opinion on the 
fourth environmental action programme referred to in 
1.1). 
2. Comments on the individual provisions 
2.1. Article 2 
2.1.1. In Article 2(a) it is not clear what is meant by 
'data' and especially 'data ... of a legal nature'. The 
wording suggests that merely quantitative details and 
figures are to be required. At all events the information 
whose disclosure is to be obligatory should be listed in 
more practical terms; this would ensure that the content 
of the information to which the Directive grants access 
is more or less the same in all Member States. This more 
practical information should also include the impact 
of environmental damage on human health (including 
information of an epidemiological nature). 
2.1.2. The following text should be added to the 
second indent under a): 
'Information about private projects shall be 
included insofar as it is available to the authority 
under statutory provisions relating to environmen­
tal protection and planning.' 
This is the only context in which a public authority 
can be obliged to pass on information about private 
'activities'. 
2.1.3. Under Article 2(b), 'unfinished documents' are 
to be exempted from the disclosure obligation. The 
Committee takes this to mean unfinished administrative 
work (i.e. documents still being considered internally 
by an authority), which are not yet being used—either 
in full or in part—for administrative or political pur­
poses. It would seem particularly important to regard infor­
mation supplied by other people as confidential if the 
abuse thereof is to be prevented. Therefore—in keeping 
with the proposal under 2.1.2—'under statutory pro­
visions relating to environmental protection and plan­
ning' should be added after 'the body receiving the 
information'. 
2.1.4. According to the Committee, the obligation to 
disclose information should also cover the European 
Community authorities {cf. 1.3 above). It also does not 
seem logical to the Committee to exclude legislative 
bodies from this obligation. The private citizen and 
other interested parties could have a legitimate interest 
in the opinions, etc., of these bodies. 
2.2. Article 3 
The draft Directive guarantees the right of access to 
information without those seeking the information 
'having to display an interest', although in a number 
of Member States the right of access to information 
from authorities is conditional on a 'legitimate interest' 
for a number of important reasons. 
The Committee agrees with the line taken in the draft 
Directive if it is specified (possibly in Article 5) that the 
reasons for applying for the information have to be 
stated on the application. This is the only way to 
spot a possible abuse of the right of access or of the 
information given (Article 8). Making it compulsory to 
justify a request for information also ensures that pri­
vate citizens—as well as associations and organiz­
ations—receive that information which is of individual 
or general interest to them. 
2.3. Article 4 
The Economic and Social Committee welcomes the fact 
that the applicant is given the choice of either inspecting 
the records or files or being sent the information 
requested. The Committee takes the proposal to mean 
that the authorities will not be forced to provide elabor­
ate details, which would put a strain on their resources. 
The Committee takes the proposed payment of costs 
to refer to the material costs arising in individual cases 
(e.g. cost of photocopies, documents, etc.). National 
rules about additional administrative costs and 
fees—even to the extent that the payment of costs 
is dropped in the public interest or for reasons of 
fairness—are to remain unaffected. 
2.4. Article 5 
The Committee takes Article 5(1) to mean that when a 
request for information on the environment is made, 
5. 6. 89 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 139/49 
the 'object' of the request should be indicated as accu­
rately as possible. This provision is considered by the 
Committee to be highly advisable. 
The Committee would point out in connection with 
Article 5(2) that the administrative measures referred 
to therein should not hamper the authorities to a point 
where they are practically incapable of carrying out 
their main task of implementing measures to protect 
the environment. 
2.5. Article 6 
In order to make allowance for the points made in 2.4 
with regard to Article 5 and avoid rushing into court 
proceedings and other means of legal redress, the period 
for processing an application should be increased to six 
weeks. 
2.6. Article 8 
The proposed Article 8 gives cause for concern in many 
respects and prompts the following proposed improve­
ments. 
2.6.1. Article 8(1), fifth indent, should refer to not 
only proceedings before the courts but also investigative 
proceedings (i.e. proceedings involving the police and 
public prosecutors). 
2.6.2. The seventh indent should read as follows: 
' ... privacy and, in particular, national provisions 
about data protection ...' 
2.6.3. A provision should be added at the end of 
the first paragraph, making it possible to restrict the 
Done at Brussels, 31 March 1989. authority's obligation to supply information if the 
application relates to information which the authority 
has received 'in confidence' from third parties and 
whose disclosure would jeopardize the effectiveness of 
measures by the authorities. 
Without such a restriction, the environmental protec­
tion authorities' powers to act might be called to ques­
tion, thereby detracting from the purpose of the Direc­
tive. 
2.6.4. The Committee would ask the Commission to 
check the separate language versions of the proposed 
Article 8(4). It agrees with the German version: requests 
for information should be refused only in cases where 
the right is being 'manifestly abused'. 
The Committee also takes Article 8 to mean that any 
refusal for the reasons stated therein should be dealt 
with in accordance with the procedure laid down in 
Articles 6 and 7. 
2.7. Article 9 
Numerous Member States already publish periodic 
reports on the environment. The need to harmonize 
this reporting is recognized by the Committee. The 
frequency of the reports up-to-date should be reduced 
to two years in order to ensure that they are up-to-
date. Care should also be taken to ensure that the 
reports are up-to-date at the time of publication. In 
addition, the active information measures taken by 
authorities within the Member States (both regional 
and local) should be improved (cf. the proposals in 
1.2.3). 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE 
No C 139/50 Official Journal of the European Communities 5. 6. 89 
APPENDIX 
to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
The following amendments, which received at least one-quarter of the total votes cast, were defeated in the 
course of the discussions: 
Point 2.2, on Article 3 
Delete the second paragraph. 
Reasons 
To make it clear that access to information is not confined solely to those who have a personal or direct 
interest therein. 
Voting 
For: 18, against: 24, abstentions: 2. 
Point 2.6.3 
Delete. 
Reasons 
Respect of confidentiality is already covered in the Commission proposal. The 'effectiveness of measures by 
the authorities' is a vague concept in the context of this proposal. 
Voting 
For: 16, against: 28, abstentions: 4. 
Opinion on relations between the European Community and the newly industrializing 
countries (NIC) of South-East Asia 
(89/C 139/14) 
On 7 July 1988 the Economic and Social Committee (ESC) decided, under the fourth 
paragraph of Article 20 of the Rules of Procedure, to issue an Opinion on relations between 
the European Community and the newly industrializing countries (NIC) of South-East Asia. 
The Section for External Relations, Trade and Development Policy, which was responsible 
for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 10 March 1989. 
The rapporteur was Mr Collas. 
At its 264th plenary session (meeting of 31 March 1989) the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following Opinion with no votes against and four abstentions. 
1. The situation 
1.1. Spectacular economic growth has occurred in 
most countries of South-East Asia [i.e. the countries of 
the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN): 
Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore 
and Thailand, plus South Korea, Hong Kong and Tai­
wan]. Over the last two decades the annual growth rate in terms of gross national product (GNP) per capita 
has averaged 2,3% for the Philippines and 7,6% for 
Singapore. The overall average has been 4-5 %. 
The per capita GNP of a number of SE Asian countries 
and territories—South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and 
Hong Kong—has overtaken that of the poorer countries 
of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and 
Development (OECD) and even EEC countries. The