Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Seventh Chamber)

18 June 2025 ([\*](#Footnote*))

( Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Documents relating to the procedure for renewing the approval of the active substance captan – EFSA decision to disclose the full list of co-formulants present in the formulation for representative uses of the plant protection product Captan 80 WG referring to that substance – Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a natural or legal person – Overriding public interest – Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 – Information relating to emissions into the environment )

In Case T‑222/23,

**Arysta Lifescience,** established in Noguères (France), represented by D. Abrahams and Z. Romata, lawyers,

applicant,

v

**European Food Safety Authority (EFSA),** represented by D. Detken, S. Gabbi and C. Pintado, acting as Agents, and by S. Raes, E. Kairis and Z. Lejeune, lawyers,

defendant,

supported by

**Claude Gruffat,** residing in Mulsans (France),

and

**Benoît Biteau,** residing in Sablonceaux (France),

represented by B. Kloostra, lawyer,

interveners,

THE GENERAL COURT (Seventh Chamber),

composed of K. Kowalik‑Bańczyk, President, I. Dimitrakopoulos (Rapporteur) and B. Ricziová, Judges,

Registrar: P. Cullen, Administrator,

having regard to the order of 21 July 2023, *Arysta Lifescience* v *EFSA* (T‑222/23 R, not published, EU:T:2023:417),

having regard to the written part of the procedure,

further to the hearing on 6 February 2025,

gives the following

**Judgment**

1        By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Arysta Lifescience, seeks the annulment of the decision of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) of 17 February 2023 notifying it of its decision to disclose fully, on 3 March 2023, the list of co-formulants present in the formulation for representative uses of the plant protection product Captan 80 WG submitted in the framework of the renewal of the approval of the active substance captan (‘the contested decision’).

**Background to the dispute**

2        The applicant markets plant protection products containing the active substance captan, in particular the plant protection product Captan 80 WG. The latter is a fungicide which can be used to combat various fungal diseases in fruit cultivation, in horticulture and for seed treatment. That product contains the active substance captan and certain ‘co-formulants’.

3        The active substance captan was assessed and approved for the first time on 1 October 2007 for a period of 10 years. It was accordingly entered, most recently, on the list of approved active substances in the annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 of 25 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of approved active substances (OJ 2011 L 153, p. 1).

4        Implementing Regulation No 540/2011 has been amended several times in order to extend the validity of the approval of the active substance captan. Accordingly, the expiry date for the approval, initially set at 30 September 2017, was finally fixed at 15 November 2024.

5        In September 2014, the applicant submitted an application for the renewal of the approval of the active substance captan.

6        On 16 December 2022, an application for access to documents was submitted to EFSA by three Members of the European Parliament under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43), concerning, inter alia, the list of co-formulants present in the formulation intended for representative uses of the plant protection product Captan 80 WG, submitted by the applicant in the framework of the renewal of the approval of the active substance captan (‘the list at issue’).

7        By letter of 13 January 2023, EFSA notified the applicant of its intention to grant access to the list at issue on the ground that the information therein met the conditions to be regarded as ‘[relating] to emissions into the environment’ within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13), and that there was, accordingly, an overriding public interest in its disclosure.

8        By letter of 20 January 2023, the applicant objected to the disclosure of the list at issue since the latter contained, in its view, commercially sensitive and confidential information the disclosure of which infringed Article 63 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ 2009 L 309, p. 1).

9        By letter dated 24 January 2023, EFSA notified the applicant of its decision to disclose the list at issue, for the reasons set out in its letter of 13 January 2023.

10      On 3 February 2023, the applicant informed EFSA of its intention to bring an action for annulment against the decision referred to in paragraph 9 above.

11      By letter dated 6 February 2023, EFSA informed the applicant, first, of the annulment of the decision referred to in paragraph 9 above and, secondly, of its intention to adopt a new decision to disclose the list at issue, on the ground that that list contained ‘information relating to emissions into the environment’, within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006, with the result that there was an overriding public interest in that disclosure.

12      On 13 February 2023, the applicant submitted to EFSA its observations on EFSA’s letter of 6 February 2023 objecting to the full disclosure of the list at issue.

13      By letter of 17 February 2023, EFSA notified the applicant of the contested decision. It emphasised that, in the present case, the active substance at issue was already on the market and had to be regarded as present in the environment. Accordingly, in the light of the relevant case-law (judgments of 23 November 2016, *Commission* v *Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and PAN Europe*, C‑673/13 P, EU:C:2016:889; of 21 November 2018, *Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and PAN Europe* v *Commission*, T‑545/11 RENV, EU:T:2018:817; of 7 March 2019, *Tweedale* v *EFSA*, T‑716/14, EU:T:2019:141; and of 7 March 2019, *Hautala and Others* v *EFSA*, T‑329/17, not published, EU:T:2019:142), EFSA found that the list at issue came under the category of ‘information [relating] to emissions into the environment’, within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006 since that information was part of the composition of a plant protection product and could therefore be regarded as information concerning actual and foreseeable emissions into the environment. In addition, it noted that that list and the list of co-formulants for the plant protection product Captan 80 WG, which was authorised in the Member States and, therefore, already on the market, were almost identical. Consequently, the composition of that plant protection product concerned actual emissions into the environment.

**Forms of order sought**

14      The applicant claims that the Court should:

–        annul the contested decision;

–        order EFSA to pay the costs.

15      EFSA, supported by Mr Claude Gruffat and Mr Benoît Biteau, the interveners, contends that the Court should:

–        dismiss the action;

–        order the applicant to pay the costs.

**Law**

16      In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law alleging infringement of the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 and of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006. In particular, it claims, in essence, that EFSA made a manifest error of assessment by finding that the list at issue was ‘information relating to emissions into the environment’ within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006. It adds that, because of that infringement, the contested decision must necessarily be annulled since, on account of the misapplication of the abovementioned provision, EFSA made no assessment of the applicant’s commercial interests in accordance with the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001. In any event, had there been such an assessment, it would be vitiated by an error of law or a manifest error of assessment linked to the incorrect classification of the nature of the information which EFSA decided to disclose.

***The merits of the single plea in law***

17      The applicant claims, in essence, that EFSA erred in law and made a manifest error of assessment by finding that the list at issue contained ‘information which relates to emissions into the environment’ within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006. According to the applicant, it was necessary to carry out an assessment of its commercial interests pursuant to the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 and to conclude, on the basis of that assessment, that the information to be disclosed was clearly covered by the exception laid down in that provision and that there was no other overriding public interest in that disclosure.

18      In that regard, the applicant submits, in essence, that the list at issue concerns a ‘potential’ formulation of a product, submitted for the purpose of showing the ‘in principle’ regulatory viability of a plant protection product containing the active substance at issue (that is, a representative use of a plant protection product within the meaning of Article 4 of Regulation No 1107/2009), and not necessarily an actual plant protection product to be placed on the market. Therefore, it takes the view, in essence, that, in the contested decision, EFSA misapplied the relevant case-law and incorrectly relied on the judgments of 7 March 2019, *Tweedale* v *EFSA* (T‑716/14, EU:T:2019:141), and *Hautala and Others* v *EFSA* (T‑329/17, not published, EU:T:2019:142), which related to information on an active substance actually released into the environment. The applicant also claims, in essence, that, given the distinction made in Regulation No 1107/2009 between, on the one hand, the stage of the approval or of the renewal of approval of the active substance and, on the other hand, the stage of the authorisation for placing on the market a plant protection product containing such a substance, the nature and purpose of information communicated in each of those stages must be distinguished. Referring to the judgment of 21 November 2018, *Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and PAN Europe* v *Commission* (T‑545/11 RENV, EU:T:2018:817), which concerned an application for access to documents relating to the first authorisation of the placing on the market of the active substance glyphosate, it states that information relating to emissions into the environment may be provided only at the stage of the national authorisation procedure for plant protection products. Accordingly, the applicant is of the opinion, in essence, that the list at issue, which concerns information relating to the stage of the renewal of approval of the active substance, has an insufficient link with emissions into the environment.

19      The applicant claims that the rule of ‘information [relating] to emissions into the environment’ was misapplied in the contested decision, and that EFSA should have found that that rule was inapplicable.

20      EFSA, supported by the interveners, disputes the applicant’s arguments.

21      In the context of the present case, the following definitions and procedures should be recalled as a preliminary point.

22      Under Article 2(1) of Regulation No 1107/2009, ‘plant protection products’ are ‘products, in the form in which they are supplied to the user, consisting of or containing active substances, safeners or synergists’, and intended for specific uses relating to plants or plant products.

23      According to Article 2(2) of Regulation No 1107/2009, ‘active substances’ are ‘substances, including micro-organisms having general or specific action against harmful organisms or on plants, parts of plants or plant products’.

24      In addition, under Article 2(3)(c) of Regulation No 1107/2009, ‘co-formulants’ are ‘substances or preparations which are used or intended to be used in a plant protection product or adjuvant, but are neither active substances nor safeners or synergists’.

25      It should also be noted that, in accordance with Article 1.4.1 of Part A, Section I, of the annex to Commission Regulation (EU) No 284/2013 of 1 March 2013 setting out the data requirements for plant protection products, in accordance with Regulation No 1107/2009 (OJ 2013 L 93, p. 85), the composition of plant protection products includes information linked, inter alia, to the content of the active substances and, as the case may be, of co-formulants.

26      Lastly, so far as concerns the placing of plant protection products on the market in the European Union, it should be recalled that Regulation No 1107/2009 provides for a system consisting of, first, an approval procedure for an active substance and, secondly, an authorisation procedure for the plant protection product which contains that substance and other elements. The procedure for the approval of active substances takes place at EU level and culminates in a Commission decision on the approval or non-approval of the substance. For the purposes of approving an active substance, the assessment concerns ‘one or more representative uses of at least one plant protection product containing that active substance’, consisting in essence of one or more specific suggested uses of the plant protection product on one or more specific plants, and includes the relevant suggested conditions of use for that representative use. The procedure for authorising a plant protection product takes place at national level. An applicant who wishes to place a plant protection product on the market must apply for an authorisation in each Member State where the plant protection product is intended to be placed on the market.

27      It follows from those considerations that an active substance, such as captan, must be approved at EU level to be able to be part of the composition of plant protection products, such as the plant protection product Captan 80 WG, which must, in turn, necessarily be authorised by a Member State before being placed on the market.

28      In addition, Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 provides:

‘2.      The institutions shall refuse access to a document where disclosure would undermine the protection of:

– commercial interests of a natural or legal person, including intellectual property,

– court proceedings and legal advice,

– the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits,

unless there is an overriding public interest in disclosure.’

29      Recital 15 of Regulation No 1367/2006 states:

‘Where Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 provides for exceptions, these should apply subject to any more specific provisions in this Regulation concerning requests for environmental information. The grounds for refusal as regards access to environmental information should be interpreted in a restrictive way, taking into account the public interest served by disclosure and whether the information requested relates to emissions in the environment. The term “commercial interests” covers confidentiality agreements concluded by institutions or bodies acting in a banking capacity.’

30      Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006 provides:

‘As regards Article 4(2), first and third indents, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, with the exception of investigations, in particular those concerning possible infringements of Community law, an overriding public interest in disclosure shall be deemed to exist where the information requested relates to emissions into the environment. As regards the other exceptions set out in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, the grounds for refusal shall be interpreted in a restrictive way, taking into account the public interest served by disclosure and whether the information requested relates to emissions into the environment.’

31      Accordingly, Article 6 of Regulation No 1367/2006 adds specific rules on requests for access to environmental information to Regulation No 1049/2001 (see judgment of 7 March 2019, *Hautala and Others* v *EFSA*, T‑329/17, not published, EU:T:2019:142, paragraph 59 and the case-law cited).

32      As regards the concept of information which ‘relates to emissions into the environment’ within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006, it must be borne in mind that, according to the Court of Justice, it can be seen from recital 2 of Regulation No 1049/2001 that openness enables the EU institutions to have greater legitimacy and to be more effective and more accountable to EU citizens in a democratic system and that, by allowing divergences between various points of view to be openly debated, it also contributes to increasing those citizens’ confidence in those institutions (judgment of 4 September 2018, *ClientEarth* v *Commission*, C‑57/16 P, EU:C:2018:660, paragraph 75).

33      For those purposes, Regulation No 1049/2001 is intended, as is apparent from recital 4 and from Article 1 thereof, to give the fullest possible effect to the right of public access to documents of the institutions. Likewise, Regulation No 1367/2006 aims, as provided for in Article 1 thereof, to ensure the widest possible systematic availability and dissemination of the environmental information held by the institutions and bodies of the European Union (see judgment of 23 November 2016, *Commission* v *Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and PAN Europe*, C‑673/13 P, EU:C:2016:889, paragraph 52 and the case-law cited).

34      Therefore, it is only in so far as they derogate from the principle of the widest possible public access to those documents by restricting such access that exceptions to that principle, in particular those provided for in Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001, must, according to the settled case-law of the Court of Justice, be interpreted and applied strictly. The need for such a restrictive interpretation is, moreover, confirmed by recital 15 of Regulation No 1367/2006 (see judgment of 23 November 2016, *Commission* v *Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and PAN Europe*, C‑673/13 P, EU:C:2016:889, paragraph 53 and the case-law cited).

35      On the other hand, by establishing a presumption that the disclosure of ‘information [relating] to emissions into the environment’, with the exception of information relating to investigations, is deemed to be in the overriding public interest, compared with the interest in protecting the commercial interests of a particular natural or legal person, with the result that the protection of those commercial interests may not be invoked to preclude the disclosure of that information, the first sentence of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006 derogates from the rule requiring the weighing up of the interests laid down in Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001. Nonetheless, the first sentence of Article 6(1) thus allows actual implementation of the principle that the public should have the widest possible access to information held by the institutions and bodies of the European Union, with the result that a narrow interpretation of that provision cannot be justified (judgment of 23 November 2016, *Commission* v *Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and PAN Europe*, C‑673/13 P, EU:C:2016:889, paragraph 54).

36      That means that an EU institution, hearing a request for access to a document, cannot justify its refusal to divulge it on the basis of the exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a particular natural or legal person, provided for in the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, where the information contained in that document constitutes information which ‘relates to emissions into the environment’ within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006.

37      In addition, it should be observed that, although the expression ‘information [relating] to emissions into the environment’ is not explicitly defined in Regulation No 1367/2006 or in the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision‐making and access to justice in environmental matters, approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005 (OJ 2005 L 124, p. 1), the Court of Justice has provided clarification as to its interpretation.

38      In particular, the Court of Justice has held that the concept of ‘information [relating] to emissions into the environment’ had to be understood to include, inter alia, data that will allow the public to know what is actually released into the environment or what, it may be foreseen, will be released into the environment under normal or realistic conditions of use of the product or substance in question, namely those under which the authorisation to place that product or substance on the market was granted and which prevail in the area where that product or substance is intended to be used. Consequently, that concept must be interpreted as covering, inter alia, information concerning the nature, composition, quantity, date and place of the actual or foreseeable emissions, under such conditions, from that product or substance (judgment of 23 November 2016, *Commission* v *Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and PAN Europe*, C‑673/13 P, EU:C:2016:889, paragraph 79).

39      In addition, the Court of Justice has held that, although it was not necessary to apply a restrictive interpretation of the concept of ‘information [relating] to emissions into the environment’, that concept may not, in any event, include information containing any kind of link, even direct, to emissions into the environment. If that concept were interpreted as covering such information, it would to a large extent deprive the concept of ‘environmental information’, as defined in Article 2(1)(d) of Regulation No 1367/2006, of any meaning. Such an interpretation would deprive of any practical effect the possibility, laid down in the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, for the institutions to refuse to disclose environmental information on the ground, inter alia, that such disclosure would have an adverse effect on the protection of the commercial interests of a particular natural or legal person and would jeopardise the balance which the EU legislature intended to maintain between the objective of transparency and the protection of those interests (judgment of 23 November 2016, *Commission* v *Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and PAN Europe*, C‑673/13 P, EU:C:2016:889, paragraph 81).

40      It is in the light of those considerations that it must be assessed whether EFSA erred in finding that the list at issue contained information relating to emissions into the environment within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006 and, accordingly, whether there was an overriding public interest in its disclosure preventing the exception provided for in the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 from applying.

41      In that regard, as was stated in paragraph 13 above, in the contested decision, EFSA found, in the first place, that the active substance captan was already on the market and had to be regarded as present in the environment. It therefore concluded that the list at issue came under the category of ‘information [relating] to emissions into the environment’ within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006 since it was part of the composition of a plant protection product containing the active substance captan and could accordingly be regarded as information regarding actual or foreseeable emissions into the environment. In the second place, it submitted, as an additional ground for applying that provision, that that list, communicated by the applicant in the course of the renewal procedure, was almost identical to the list of co-formulants of the plant protection product Captan 80 WG, which was already on the market and the composition of which concerned actual emissions into the environment. In that regard, it specified that the sole difference between the two lists of co-formulants was a different CAS (Chemical Abstracts Service) number for one of the co-formulants.

42      EFSA therefore relied, in the contested decision, on two distinct grounds in support of the application of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006: the first concerning the fact that the active substance was already on the market because of its earlier approval and the ‘actual or foreseeable’ emissions, and the second concerning only the ‘actual emissions’, having regard to the placing on the market of the plant protection product Captan 80 WG and to the similarity between the co-formulants in that product and those included in the formulation intended for representative uses of that plant protection product, concerned by the application for the renewal of the approval of the active substance captan.

43      It is appropriate to begin by examining the second ground relied on in the contested decision in support of the application of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006.

44      In that context, EFSA found in the contested decision that the list at issue was almost identical to the one which was part of the formulation of the plant protection product Captan 80 WG, which was already approved, authorised and on the EU market and the composition of which related to actual emissions into the environment, the only difference being the CAS number for ‘sodium lignosulphate’. In its written pleadings before the Court and during the hearing, it stated that the two lists of co-formulants (namely, first, the list of co-formulants present in the formulation for representative uses of that plant protection product concerned by the application for the renewal of the approval of the active substance captan and, secondly, the list of co-formulants in the formulation of the plant protection product Captan 80 WG) are, from a technical perspective, strictly identical. In its view, even though the CAS numbers are different for one co-formulant, they refer to the same chemical substance, since CAS number 9009‑75‑0 is obsolete and CAS number 8061‑51‑6 is more recent.

45      The fact that the two lists are, from a technical perspective, identical, is not disputed by the applicant in a clear and specific manner in its pleadings and was confirmed by the applicant during the hearing. In that regard, the applicant claims instead, for the purpose of disputing the second ground relied on in the contested decision in support of the application of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006, that the identical nature of the two lists in question is irrelevant since those sets of information were submitted for two different regulatory purposes, one concerning only a ‘representative product’ to which the application for the renewal of the approval of the active substance relates, and the other, an actual product, which has a direct impact on how those data are characterised under the rules relating to emissions.

46      However, that argument of the applicant is not capable of calling into question the merits of the second ground relied on in the contested decision in support of the application of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006. Indeed, it is not disputed that the plant protection product Captan 80 WG, which contains the co-formulants referred to by the application for access to documents in question, was authorised by a Member State and is already on the EU market.

47      In that regard, it should be noted that, like the active substances contained in a plant protection product, the co-formulants contained in such a product are discharged into the environment in the course of its normal or realistic use, which is not, moreover, disputed by the applicant. In addition, information concerning emissions of a plant protection product constitutes ‘information [relating] to emissions into the environment’ where that product has been authorised by a Member State and placed on its market (see, to that effect, judgments of 7 March 2019, *Tweedale* v *EFSA*, T‑716/14, EU:T:2019:141, paragraphs 82 to 87, and of 7 March 2019, *Hautala and Others* v *EFSA*, T‑329/17, not published, EU:T:2019:142, paragraphs 89 to 94).

48      Furthermore, the concept of a ‘representative’ plant protection product advanced by the applicant in its pleadings does not appear in Regulation No 1107/2009. In any event, the distinction, put forward by the applicant, between a ‘representative’ (or ‘potential’) product and an ‘actual’ product does not affect EFSA’s finding regarding the actual emissions of the plant protection product Captan 80 WG, given the identical nature of the co-formulants included both in the list of co-formulants present in the formulation for representative uses of that plant protection product concerned by the application for the renewal of the approval of the active substance and in the list of co-formulants in the formulation of that plant protection product.

49      It must be held that, in so far as the list of co-formulants of a plant protection product concerned by the procedure for renewing the approval of an active substance in that product is identical to the list of co-formulants of a plant protection product containing that substance which is already authorised and placed on the EU market, such a list, like the list at issue, concerns actual emissions into the environment of a product which is already on the market. Contrary to what the applicant claims, the fact that the procedure for renewing the approval of an active substance is distinct from the procedure for authorising a plant protection product does not affect the classification of those emissions as actual emissions and is accordingly incapable of calling into question EFSA’s finding regarding the actual emissions of the plant protection product Captan 80 WG.

50      Consequently, it is not established that EFSA erred in law or made an error of assessment by finding that the list of co-formulants present in the formulation intended for representative uses of the plant protection product Captan 80 WG, which was already authorised and present on the market, had therefore to be classified as ‘information [relating] to [its actual] emissions into the environment’.

51      As a secondary point, it should be observed that the first ground relied on in the contested decision in support of the application of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006 is also not vitiated by an error of law or of assessment.

52      In the first place, it is not disputed that the list at issue, referred to by the application for access to documents in question, is part of the dossier for the renewal of the approval of the active substance captan, which is used in the plant protection product Captan 80 WG and is already present in the environment, and not part of a dossier relating to a first approval of an active substance.

53      In the second place, it should be noted that, like the active substance captan, the co-formulants referred to by the application for access to the document at issue are intended to be discharged into the environment in the course of normal use of the plant protection product containing that active substance, which is already authorised, with the result that that document concerns emissions that are foreseeable and not purely hypothetical (see, by analogy, judgments of 7 March 2019, *Tweedale* v *EFSA*, T‑716/14, EU:T:2019:141, paragraph 82, and of 7 March 2019, *Hautala and Others* v *EFSA*, T‑329/17, not published, EU:T:2019:142, paragraph 89).

54      In the third place, in so far as the applicant complains that EFSA did not apply, by analogy, the approach taken in the judgment of 21 November 2018, *Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and PAN Europe* v *Commission* (T‑545/11 RENV, EU:T:2018:817), it is clear that the documents at issue in the case which gave rise to that judgment related to the first authorisation of the placing on the market of glyphosate as an active substance. On the contrary, in the present case, the list at issue relates to the procedure for renewing the approval of the active substance captan as an active substance. Moreover, the placing on the market of the plant protection product Captan 80 WG, which contains that active substance, had already been authorised in the Member States. Those facts are such as to rule out the application by analogy of the approach taken in the judgment of 21 November 2018, *Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and PAN Europe* v *Commission*  (T‑545/11 RENV, EU:T:2018:817).

55      In the light of the foregoing, the complaint concerning infringement of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006 must be rejected as unfounded.

56      Lastly, the applicant submits that, if, as it claims, EFSA was incorrect to find that the rule of information relating to emissions into the environment applied, the contested decision must be annulled for infringement of the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 since it does not include any assessment of the commercial harm to the applicant. It must be found that EFSA did not carry out such an assessment in the contested decision on account of the application of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006. However, since EFSA correctly found that the list at issue contained ‘information [relating] to emissions into the environment’, it was not necessary to carry out such an assessment on the basis of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, which is, moreover, not disputed by the applicant (see, to that effect, judgments of 23 November 2016, *Commission* v *Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and PAN Europe*, C‑673/13 P, EU:C:2016:889, paragraph 54; of 7 March 2019, *Tweedale* v *EFSA*, T‑716/14, EU:T:2019:141, paragraphs 57 and 127; and of 7 March 2019, *Hautala and Others* v *EFSA*, T‑329/17, not published, EU:T:2019:142, paragraphs 63 and 123). Consequently, the abovementioned argument of the applicant must be rejected as unfounded.

57      In the light of the foregoing considerations, it is necessary to reject the single plea in law and, accordingly, dismiss the action in its entirety.

**Costs**

58      Under Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings.

59      Since the applicant has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by EFSA and the interveners, including those relating to the proceedings for interim relief, in accordance with the form of order sought by the latter.

On those grounds,

THE GENERAL COURT (Seventh Chamber)

hereby:

1.      **Dismisses the action;**

2.      **Orders Arysta Lifescience to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and by Mr Claude Gruffat and Mr Benoît Biteau, including EFSA’s costs relating to the proceedings for interim relief.**

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Kowalik-Bańczyk | Dimitrakopoulos | Ricziová |

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 18 June 2025.

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
| V. Di Bucci |  | M. van der Woude |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Registrar |  | President |

---

[\*](#Footref*)      Language of the case: English.

[Top](#document1)