Case C-84/22, Right to Know: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 November 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — Right to Know CLG v An Taoiseach (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Aarhus Convention — Directive 2003/4/EC — Public access to environmental information — Refusal of a request for information — Records of government meetings — Discussions relating to greenhouse gas emissions — Article 4(1) and (2) — Exceptions to the right of access to information — Concepts of ‘internal communications’ and ‘proceedings of public authorities’ — Judicial review — Quashing of the decision refusing access — Applicable exception identified in the judgment — Res judicata)
Date: 2023-11-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: confidentiality, environmental protection, environmental standard, government, greenhouse gas, judicial review, reduction of gas emissions, right to information








C_202400605EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/605


15.1.2024





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 November 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — Right to Know CLG v An Taoiseach
(Case C-84/22, (1) Right to Know)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Aarhus Convention - Directive 2003/4/EC - Public access to environmental information - Refusal of a request for information - Records of government meetings - Discussions relating to greenhouse gas emissions - Article 4(1) and (2) - Exceptions to the right of access to information - Concepts of ‘internal communications’ and ‘proceedings of public authorities’ - Judicial review - Quashing of the decision refusing access - Applicable exception identified in the judgment - Res judicata)
(C/2024/605)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Right to Know CLG

Respondent: An Taoiseach

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 4 of Directive 2003/4/EC 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
must be interpreted as meaning that:






—


the exception laid down in point (e) of the first subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Directive 2003/4 in respect of ‘internal communications’ covers information which circulates within a public authority and which, on the date of the request for access to that information, has not left the internal sphere of that authority — as the case may be, after being received by that authority, provided that it was not or should not have been made available to the public before it was so received;










—


the exception laid down in point (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 4(2) of that directive in respect of the ‘proceedings of public authorities’ covers only information exchanged in the course of the final stages of the decision-making process of public authorities which are clearly defined as proceedings under national law and in respect of which such law provides for a duty of confidentiality, and










—


the cumulative application of the exceptions to the right of access laid down, respectively, in point (e) of the first subparagraph of Article 4(1) and in point (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 4(2) of that directive is precluded on the ground that the latter provision relating to the protection of the ‘proceedings of public authorities’ takes precedence over the former provision relating to the protection of ‘internal communications’.














2.


Article 6 of Directive 2003/4, read in the light of the principles of equivalence and effectiveness,
must be interpreted as not precluding a national rule according to which the principle of res judicata prevents a person, who, in a first judgment, obtained the quashing of a decision which had refused his or her request for access to environmental information, from raising, in the context of a dispute between the same parties concerning the legality of a second decision which relates to the same request for access and was adopted in order to give effect to the first judgment, a ground of challenge alleging an infringement of Article 4 of Directive 2003/4, where that ground of challenge was rejected in the first judgment but such a rejection is not referred to in the operative part of that judgment, and where that judgment became final in the absence of any appeal which could have been brought by the applicant seeking access. However, to the extent that it is authorised to do so by the applicable domestic rules of procedure, a national court must allow that person to raise the abovementioned ground of challenge so that, if necessary, the situation at issue in the main proceedings is brought back into line with EU legislation.






(1)  
            OJ C 191, 10.5.2022.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/605/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)