29.

Thereupon both Bayer CropScience and the Bee Foundation appealed against that decision. In those proceedings the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court of Appeal in matters of Trade and Industry) has referred the following questions to the Court: ‘(1) Do the provisions of Article 14 of the Plant Protection Directive and Article 63, respectively, read in conjunction with Article 59 of the Plant Protection Regulation and Article 19 of the Biocidal Products Directive, respectively, mean that a request for confidentiality, as referred to in the aforementioned Articles 14, 63 and 19 from an applicant referred to in those articles, must be decided on for each individual information source before or when granting the authorisation, or before or when amending the authorisation, respectively, by means of a decision which can be made known to interested third parties? (2) If the previous question is answered in the affirmative: must Article 4(2) of the Environmental Information Directive be interpreted as meaning that in the absence of a decision as referred to in the previous question, the respondent, as a national authority, is obliged to disclose the environmental information requested when such a request is made after the granting of the authorisation or after the amendment of the authorisation respectively? (3) How must the term “emissions into the environment” in Article 4(2) of the Environmental Information Directive be interpreted, given what the parties have stated in that regard in section 5.5 of this interlocutory judgment, against the background of the content of the documents as set out in section 5.2? (4) (a) Can data which provide an estimate of the release into the environment of a product, its active ingredient(s) and other components as a result of the use of the product be deemed to be “information on emissions into the environment”? (b) If so, does it matter whether those data have been obtained by means of (semi-) field studies or other types of studies (such as, for example, laboratory studies and translocation studies)? (5) Can laboratory studies be deemed to be “information on emissions into the environment” when the test is aimed at examining isolated aspects under standardised conditions and in that framework many factors, such as, for example (climatological influences) are excluded and the tests are often conducted with — in comparison with customary practice — high dosages? (6) In that regard, must residues after the application of the product in the experimental set-up, in, for example, the air or on the ground, leaves, pollen or nectar of a crop (which is derived from treated seed), in honey or on non-target organisms also be included under “emissions into the environment”? (7) And is that also the case in respect of the degree of (dust) drift when the product is applied in the experimental set-up? (8) Do the words “information on emissions into the environment”, as referred to in the second sentence of the second paragraph of Article 4(2) of the Environmental Information Directive, mean that, if there are emissions into the environment, the information source must be disclosed in its entirety and not be limited to the (measurement) data which may, where applicable, be derived therefrom? (9) Does the application of the exception relating to commercial or industrial information within the meaning of the aforementioned Article 4(2)(d) require a distinction to be made between “emissions”, on the one hand, and “discharges and other releases into the environment” within the meaning of Article 2(1)(b) of the Environmental Information Directive, on the other hand?’