Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
Date: 1999-09-09
22 In order to determine whether that ground is well founded, reference may be made to the consistent case-law to the effect that in the context of proceedings under Article 169 of the Treaty it is for the Commission to prove the existence of the alleged failure to fulfil obligations, and it may not rely on any presumption for that purpose (see inter alia Case 96/81 Commission v Netherlands [1982] ECR 1791, paragraph 6).
31 It is true that the Court has held that transposing a directive into national law does not necessarily require the provisions of the directive to be enacted in precisely the same words in a specific express legal provision of national law and that the general legal context may be sufficient if it actually ensures the full application of the directive in a sufficiently clear and precise manner (see inter alia Case 29/84 Commission v Germany [1985] ECR 1661, paragraph 23, and Case 247/85 Commission v Belgium [1987] ECR 3029, paragraph 9).
32 It has also held, however, that it is necessary for the legal situation to be sufficiently precise and clear to enable the persons concerned to know the full extent of their rights and, where appropriate, to be able to rely on them before the national courts (Case 29/84 Commission v Germany, cited above, paragraph 23).
33 Article 3(2) of the directive permits the Member States to refuse to grant a request for information in the cases there listed exhaustively, but the second subparagraph of that provision requires them to communicate information from which it is possible to detach information which may be covered by the requirements of confidentiality or privilege.  The result is that the latter provision imposes on Member States an obligation which is precise as regards the result to be obtained and directly affects the legal situation of individuals, who are thus entitled to obtain information under the conditions laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 3(2) of the directive.
34 As the Advocate General observed in paragraphs 13 and 14 of his Opinion, it is clear that in Germany the duty to supply information on the environment in part is not guaranteed in a manner sufficiently clear and precise to ensure compliance with the principle of legal certainty and to enable persons who may submit a request for information to know the full extent of their rights.
35 That is because in the absence of any express provision in the UIG regarding partial communication, in the first place legal and natural persons seeking information may not be aware of the fact that the existence of the grounds of refusal set out in Article 3(2), first subparagraph, of the directive does not prevent partial communication, and in the second place the public authorities to whom a request for information is addressed may be dissuaded from granting it.
47 As the Advocate General observed in paragraph 23 of his Opinion, the purpose of the directive is to confer a right on individuals which assures them freedom of access to information on the environment and to make information effectively available to any natural or legal person at his request, without his or her having to prove an interest. Consequently, any interpretation of what constitutes `a reasonable cost' for the purposes of Article 5 of the directive which may have the result that persons are dissuaded from seeking to obtain information or which may restrict their right of access to information must be rejected.
58 Secondly, the purpose of the directive, which is to guarantee freedom of access to information on the environment and to avoid any obstacles to that freedom, precludes any interpretation which is liable to dissuade those wishing to obtain information from making a request to that effect.