ClientEarth and Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) v European Food Safety Authority.
Date: 2015-07-16
30. As the General Court correctly held, in paragraphs 44 to 46 of the judgment under appeal, the fact that information is provided as part of a professional activity does not mean that it cannot be characterised as a set of personal data (see, to that effect, the judgments in Österreichischer Rundfunk and Others , C‑465/00, C‑138/01 and C‑139/01, EU:C:2003:294, paragraph 64; Commission v Bavarian Lager , C‑28/08 P, EU:C:2010:378, paragraphs 66 to 70; and Worten , C‑342/12, EU:C:2013:355, paragraphs 19 and 22).
31. Likewise, the fact that both the identity of the experts concerned and the comments submitted on the draft guidance document were made public on the EFSA website does not mean that the information at issue could no longer be so characterised (see, to that effect, the judgment in Satakunnan Markkinapörssi and Satamedia , C‑73/07, EU:C:2008:727, paragraph 49).
44. Where an application is made seeking access to personal data, within the meaning of Article 2(a) of Regulation No 45/2001, the provisions of that regulation, and in particular Article 8(b) thereof, become applicable in their entirety (see the judgments in Commission  v Bavarian Lager , C‑28/08 P, EU:C:2010:378, paragraph 63, and Strack  v Commission , C‑127/13 P, EU:C:2014:2250, paragraph 101).
47. In that context, whoever requests such a transfer must first establish that it is necessary. If it is demonstrated to be necessary, it is then for the institution concerned to determine that there is no reason to assume that that transfer might prejudice the legitimate interests of the data subject. If there is no such reason, the transfer requested must be made, whereas, if there is such a reason, the institution concerned must weigh the various competing interests in order to decide on the request for access (see, to that effect, the judgments in Commission  v Bavarian Lager , C‑28/08 P, EU:C:2010:378, paragraphs 77 and 78, and Strack  v Commission , C‑127/13 P, EU:C:2014:2250, paragraphs 107 and 108; see also, to the same effect, the judgment in Volker und Markus Schecke and Eifert , C‑92/09 and C‑93/09, EU:C:2010:662, paragraph 85).
51. In that regard, the Court has however held that, in general, no automatic priority can be conferred on the objective of transparency over the right to protection of personal data (judgment in Volker und Markus Schecke and Eifert , C‑92/09 and C‑93/09, EU:C:2010:662, paragraph 85).
56. The transparency of the process followed by a public authority for the adoption of a measure of that nature contributes to that authority acquiring greater legitimacy in the eyes of the persons to whom that measure is addressed and increasing their confidence in that authority (see, to that effect, the judgments in Sweden and Turco  v Council , C‑39/05 P and C‑52/05 P, EU:C:2008:374, paragraph 59, and Sweden  v MyTravel and Commission , C‑506/08 P, EU:C:2011:496, paragraph 113), and to ensuring that the authority is more accountable to citizens in a democratic system (see, to that effect, the judgments in Sweden and Turco  v Council , C‑39/05 P and C‑52/05 P, EU:C:2008:374, paragraph 45; Council  v Access Info Europe , C‑280/11 P, EU:C:2013:671, paragraph 32; and Council  v in 't Veld , C‑350/12 P, EU:C:2014:2039, paragraphs 53, 106 and 107).
69. It follows that, while the authority concerned must assess whether the disclosure requested might have a specific and actual adverse effect on the interest protected (see, to that effect, the judgment in Sweden and Turco  v Council , C‑39/05 P and C‑52/05 P, EU:C:2008:374, paragraph 49), EFSA’s allegation that the disclosure of the information at issue would have been likely to undermine the privacy and integrity of the experts concerned is a consideration of a general nature which is not otherwise supported by any factor which is specific to this case. On the contrary, such disclosure would, by itself, have made it possible for the suspicions of partiality in question to be dispelled or would have provided to experts who might be concerned with the opportunity to dispute, if necessary by available legal remedies, the merits of those allegations of partiality.