DOC 3
Ref. Ares(2020)4117196 - 05/08/2020
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Brussels, 7.2.2019
C(2019) 1070 final
Tervuren
Belgium
DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 4 OF THE
IMPLEMENTING RULES TO REGULATION (EC) NO 1049/20011
Subject:
Your confirmatory application for access to documents under
Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - GESTDEM 2018/2686
Dear
I refer to your letter of 21 June 2018, registered on the same day, in which you submitted
a confirmatory application in accordance with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No
1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission
documents2 (hereafter 'Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001').
1.
SCOPE OF YOUR REQUEST
In your initial application of 3 May 2018, addressed to the Directorate-General for Health
and Food Safety, you requested access to the data matching tables by Finchimica,
ADAMA and Sharda concerning
pendimethalin. You specified that you would like to
receive the data matching tables of all requests of all
pendimethalin applicants submitted
in the context of Article 43 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/20093. You indicated that you
based your request on Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and on Regulation (EC) No
1367/20064.
1
Official Journal L 345 of 29.12.2001, p. 94.
2
Official Journal L 145 of 31.5.2001, p. 43.
3
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, Official Journal L 309 of 24.11.2009, p. 1–50.
4
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, Official Journal L 264 of 25.9.2006, p. 13–19.
Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111
At the initial stage, the Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety identified the
following documents as falling within the scope of your request:
Data matching table
Pendimentalin by Finchimica (hereafter ‘document 1’);
Data matching table
Pendimentalin by Life Scientific (hereafter ‘document 2’);
Data matching table
Pendimentalin by Sharda (hereafter ‘document 3’).
In accordance with Article 4(4) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, the
Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety consulted the authorities of the
Netherlands, which had submitted these studies to the European Commission, with a
view to assessing whether an exception in paragraphs 1 to 3 could be applicable. The
authorities of the Netherlands, in turn, consulted the companies that had submitted the
studies to them. These companies communicated their opposition to the disclosure of the
requested documents to the European Commission. In its initial reply of 6 June 2018, the
Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety took into account the result of the third
party consultations and refused access to these documents, based on the exception of
Article 4(2), first indent (protection of commercial interests, including intellectual
property) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.
In your confirmatory application, you requested a review of this position. You supported
your request with detailed arguments, which I address in the corresponding sections
below.
2.
ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSIONS UNDER REGULATION (EC) NO 1049/2001
When assessing a confirmatory application for access to documents submitted pursuant
to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, the Secretariat-General conducts a fresh review of the
reply given by the relevant Directorate-General at the initial stage.
a. Consultation of the Dutch authorities
In the context of its confirmatory review, the Secretariat-General re-consulted the
authorities of the Netherlands in accordance with Article 4(4) and (5) of Regulation (EC)
No 1049/2001, as the requested documents originated from them and had been submitted
to the European Commission by the latter.
While agreeing to the public disclosure of the data included in the national introductory
remarks, the authorities of the Netherlands opposed the disclosure of any other data that
the companies seeking data matching had filled in. In addition, they opposed the
disclosure of the names of persons involved in testing on vertebrate animals. They based
their opposition on Article 4(2), first indent (protection of the commercial interests) and
Article 4(1)(b) (protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual) of Regulation
(EC) No 1049/2001.
2
The European Commission informed you about the result of the consultation of the
authorities of the Netherlands and asked whether you would like receive those parts of
the documents that the authorities of the Netherlands had agreed to disclose. In response
to this consultation, you indicated that you withdrew your request regarding Finchimica-
linked
pendimethalin materials.
Consequently, document 1 no longer falls within the scope of your request.
You also specified that you did not request access to ‘the names of the persons engaged
in vertebrate testing that may be present in the requested documents’. For the remainder,
you indicated that you maintained the scope of your request as regards Life Scientific and
Sharda-linked
pendimethalin materials. You underlined that your request was based on
both Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and Regulation (EC) No 1367/2001.
Following your reply to its consultation, the European Commission conducted a dialogue
with the authorities of the Netherlands, who finally agreed to the public disclosure of the
requested tables, subject to the redaction of:
the personal data contained therein, in accordance with Article 4(1)(b) (protection
of privacy and the integrity of the individual) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001;
and
the columns under the chapters entitled ‘title of alternative study or case
referenced/submitted by the applicant’ and ‘reason for equivalence/justification
for non-provision’, based on the protection of the commercial interests, including
intellectual property of the firms which had submitted this information to the
authorities of the Netherlands (Article 4(2), first indent of Regulation (EC) No
1049/2001).
b. ‘At first sight’ assessment by the European Commission
Following the consultation of the authorities of the Netherlands on the possible
disclosure of the requested documents, the European Commission has carried out an
at
first sight’ assessment of the arguments put forward by the authorities of the Netherlands,
based on Article 4(4) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.
In your confirmatory application, you referred to other requests that you have filed in the
past for similar data matching tables and to the fact that these were disclosed. In this
context, you request whether the policy of the European Commission has changed in this
respect. You also argue that the European Commission ‘had no need to ask the
Competent Authority [of the Netherlands] for permission.'
3
Please note in this respect that the European Commission consults the Member State
from which a document originates whenever it is not clear whether access shall or shall
not be granted to the document, as it did in the case at hand. This administrative practice
flows from Article 4(4) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, as further set out in
Article 5(4) of the European Commission’s Detailed Rules for the Application of
Regulation (EC) No 1049/20015.
Therefore, the European Commission was entitled to request the opinion of the
authorities of the Netherlands on the possible disclosure of documents originating from
them. Consequently, it was also entitled to take into consideration their views on the
possible disclosure of these documents.
In its judgment of 8 February 2018 in Case T-74/16 (
Pagkyprios Organismos
Ageladotrofon), the General Court clarified that ‘before refusing access to a document
originating from a Member State, the institution concerned must examine whether that
Member State has based its objection on the substantive exceptions in Article 4(1) to (3)
of Regulation No 1049/2001 and has given proper reasons for its position. Consequently,
when taking a decision to refuse access, the institution must make sure that those reasons
exist and refer to them in the decision it makes at the end of the procedure’.6
The General Court clarified in this judgment that the institution ‘must, in its decision, not
merely record the fact that the Member State concerned has objected to disclosure of the
document applied for, but also set out the reasons relied on by that Member State to show
that one of the exceptions to the right of access provided for in Article 4(1) to (3) of the
regulation applies’7.
The General Court also clarified that ‘the institution to which a request for access to a
document has been made does not have to carry out an exhaustive assessment of the
Member State’s decision to object by conducting a review going beyond the verification
of the mere existence of reasons referring to the exceptions in Article 4(1) to (3) of
Regulation No 1049/2001.[…] The institution must, however, check whether the
explanations given by the Member State appear to it, prima facie, to be well founded’8.
Following this assessment, I have come to the conclusion that the authorities of the
Netherlands based their objection to the disclosure of parts of the requested documents
on Article 4(2), first indent (protection of commercial interests, including intellectual
property) and on Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and Article 63 of
Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 and have given proper reasons for their position.
These arguments justify
at first sight the application of the exceptions of Article 4(1)(b)
(protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual) and of Article 4(2), first indent
(protection of commercial interests, including intellectual property).
5 Commission Decision of 5 December 2001 amending its rules of procedure (notified under document
number C(2001) 3714), Official Journal L 345 of 29.12.2001, p. 94–98.
6 Judgment of the General Court of 8 February 2018,
Pagkyprios Organismos Ageladotrofon v
Commission, Case T-74/16, EU:T:2018:75, paragraph 55.
7 Idem, paragraph 56.
8 Idem, paragraph 57.
4
Therefore, I can inform you that partial access is granted to documents 2 and 3. The
partial refusal is based on the exceptions of Article 4(1)(b) (protection of privacy and the
integrity of the individual) and Article 4(2), first indent (protection of commercial
interests, including intellectual property) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, for the
reasons set out below.
3.
PROTECTION OF PRIVACY AND THE INTEGRITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL
Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 provides that ‘access to a document is
refused where disclosure would undermine the protection of […] privacy and the
integrity of the individual, in particular in accordance with Community legislation
regarding the protection of personal data’.
In its judgment in Case C-28/08 P
(Bavarian Lager)9, the Court of Justice ruled that
when a request is made for access to documents containing personal data, Regulation
(EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000
on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the
Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data10
(hereafter ‘Regulation (EC) No 45/2001’) becomes fully applicable.
Please note that Regulation (EC) No 45/2001, as from 11 December 2018, was repealed
by Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23
October 2018 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of
personal data by the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and on the free
movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and Decision No
1247/2002/EC11 (hereafter ‘Regulation 2018/1725’).
However, the case law issued with regard to Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 remains
relevant for the interpretation of Regulation 2018/1725.
In the above-mentioned judgment, the Court of Justice stated that Article 4(1)(b) of
Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 ‘requires that any undermining of privacy and the
integrity of the individual must always be examined and assessed in conformity with the
legislation of the Union concerning the protection of personal data, and in particular with
[…] [the Data Protection] Regulation’12.
Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) 2018/1725 provides that
personal data ‘means any
information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person […]’.
9 Judgment of the Court of Justice of 29 June 2010,
European Commission v The Bavarian Lager Co.
Ltd, Case C-28/08 P, EU:C:2010:378 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘judgment in Case C-28/08 P’),
paragraph 59.
10 Official Journal L 8 of 12.1.2001, page 1.
11 Official Journal L 205 of 21.11.2018, p. 39.
12 Judgment in Case C-28/08 P, cited above, paragraph 59.
5
As the Court of Justice confirmed in Case C-465/00 (
Rechnungshof), ‘there is no reason
of principle to justify excluding activities of a professional […] nature from the notion of
private life’.13
The requested documents include the names of natural persons, for example the names of
the authors of (unpublished) studies.
As you do not request access to the names of persons involved in testing on vertebrate
animals, those names fall outside the scope of your request.
In any case, I consider that the disclosure of the names and addresses of persons involved
in testing on vertebrate animals is deemed to undermine the protection of privacy and the
integrity of the individuals concerned, according to Article 63(2)(g) of Regulation (EC)
No 1107/2009.
This information clearly constitutes personal data in the sense of Article 3(1) of
Regulation 2018/1725.
Pursuant to Article 9(1)(b) of Regulation 2018/1725, ‘personal data shall only be
transmitted to recipients established in the Union other than Union institutions and bodies
if ‘[t]he recipient establishes that it is necessary to have the data transmitted for a
specific purpose in the public interest and the controller, where there is any reason to
assume that the data subject’s legitimate interests might be prejudiced, establishes that it
is proportionate to transmit the personal data for that specific purpose after having
demonstrably weighed the various competing interests’.
Only if these conditions are fulfilled and the processing constitutes lawful processing in
accordance with the requirements of Article 5 of Regulation 2018/1725, can the
transmission of personal data occur.
In Case C-615/13 P
(ClientEarth), the Court of Justice ruled that the institution does not
have to examine of its own motion the existence of a need for transferring personal
data.14 This is also clear from Article 9(1)(b) of Regulation 2018/1725, which requires
that the necessity to have the personal data transmitted must be established by the
recipient.
13 Judgment of the Court of Justice of 20 May 2003, preliminary rulings in proceedings between
Rechnungshof and Österreichischer Rundfunk, Joined Cases C-465/00, C-138/01 and C-139/01,
EU:C:2003:294, paragraph 73.
14 Judgment of the Court of Justice of 16 July 2015,
ClientEarth v European Food Safety Agency, Case
C-615/13 P, EU:C:2015:489, paragraph 47.
6
According to Article 9(1)(b) of Regulation 2018/1725, the European Commission has to
examine the further conditions for the lawful processing of personal data only if the first
condition is fulfilled, namely if the recipient establishes that it is necessary to have the
data transmitted for a specific purpose in the public interest. It is only in this case that the
European Commission has to examine whether there is a reason to assume that the data
subject’s legitimate interests might be prejudiced and, in the affirmative, establish the
proportionality of the transmission of the personal data for that specific purpose after
having demonstrably weighed the various competing interests.
Notwithstanding the above, there are reasons to assume that the legitimate interests of the
data subjects concerned would be prejudiced by the disclosure of the personal data
reflected in the documents, as there is a real and non-hypothetical risk that such public
disclosure would harm their privacy and subject them to unsolicited external contacts.
Consequently, I conclude that, pursuant to Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No
1049/2001, access cannot be granted to the personal data, as the need to obtain access
thereto for a purpose in the public interest has not been substantiated and there is no
reason to think that the legitimate interests of the individuals concerned would not be
prejudiced by disclosure of the personal data concerned.
3.1. Protection of commercial interests
Article 4(2), first indent of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 stipulates that ‘[t]he
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, […] unless there is an overriding public interest in disclosure’.
In your confirmatory application, you state that ‘the know-how claimed by parties
objecting to [your] request for access to the Data Matching tables are seeking to protect
knowledge that should not be required of them if the responsible public body had
undertaken its duty as called upon the regulation’. In this statement, you implicitly
acknowledge that the requested documents contain information that is based on the
specific knowledge of these companies15.
Certain parts of the requested documents are withheld in application of Article 4(2), first
indent of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (protection of commercial interests, including
intellectual property), as their disclosure would undermine the commercial interests,
including the intellectual property, of the companies seeking to authorise a plant
protection product. The withheld parts are the columns under the chapters ‘title of
alternative study or case referenced/submitted by the applicant’ and ‘reason for
equivalence/justification for non-provision’.
These parts have commercial value, as the applicants have to suggest alternative studies
and explain the reasons why they consider them equivalent or justify the reasons why
they do not provide any alternative study. This information is the result of a legal,
15 Please note that this confirmatory decision is limited to your request for access to documents and
cannot address other concerns you express regarding national public bodies.
7
regulatory, technical or scientific analysis, which reflects the specific know-how of the
companies. The withheld parts contain a selection of studies based on the special skills
and knowledge of the companies concerned and a specific reasoning in which
considerable intellectual expertise was invested. The disclosure of these parts, at this
stage, would seriously undermine the commercial interests of the companies concerned,
including their intellectual property, as it would negatively affect their commercial
activity, in particular in the competitive context.
Therefore, there is a real and non-hypothetical risk that the disclosure of this information
would adversely affect the commercial interests and activities of the concerned
companies.
I conclude that the disclosure of the withheld parts of the requested document would
undermine the protection of the commercial interests of concerned companies within the
meaning of Article 4(2), first indent, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.
In your confirmatory application, you claimed that the requested documents contain
information that relates to emissions into the environment and should be disclosed in
accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1367/200616. I examine the existence of an
overriding public interest in disclosure under point 4.
4.
NO OVERRIDING PUBLIC INTEREST IN DISCLOSURE
The exception laid down in Article 4(2), first indent of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001
must be waived if there is an overriding public interest in disclosure. Such an interest
must, firstly, be public and, secondly, outweigh the harm caused by disclosure.
In your confirmatory application, you claimed that ‘not only do Regulations 1049/2001
and 1367/2006 override the desire of the [Rapporteur Member State] to keep the data
owner’s Data Matching lists and methodology secret, but Regulation 1107/2009/EU
mandates that such information be disclosed’. You also indicated that you consider that
you are entitled to have this information, based on Articles 61 and 63 of Regulation (EC)
No 1107/2009 ‘in order to understand precisely which studies or waivers any applicant
has put forward to use for the purposes of his product authorisation or reauthorisation
applications’. You also claimed that this ‘knowledge is intended to be a matter of public
record and the process entirely non-discriminatory and fair and thereby transparent’.
You also referred to Article 63(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, indicating that ‘it
provides for a clear definition as to which information may not be disclosed in avoidance
of undermining commercial interests or the privacy of individuals by means of requests
for public access to information’. In your view, such information is not included
normally in data matching tables.
16 This Convention was approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision
2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005, Official Journal L 124 of 17.5.2005, p. 1. It is applicable in EU law
through Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September
2006, cited in footnote 4.
8
I do not agree with your arguments. Firstly, the application of both Regulations (EC) No
1049/2001 and (EC) No 1367/2006 do not result in an automatic disclosure of the
requested information. Secondly, Article 63(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 does
not contain a closed list of exceptions. It merely lists information, the disclosure of which
shall normally be deemed to undermine the protection of the commercial interests or of
privacy and the integrity of the individuals concerned. This means that Article 4(2), first
indent of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 continues to apply. Thirdly, I do not share the
view that the withheld parts of the documents are information relating to emissions into
the environment.
I would like to refer in this respect to the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-
673/13 P (
Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and PAN Europe )17. That judgment
interprets the concept of information relating to emissions into the environment, for
which Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 stipulates that an overriding public
interest is deemed to exist as regards the exceptions of Article 4(2), first and third
indents, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.
The interpretation is as follows:
‘In the light of the objective set out in the first sentence of Article 6(1) of Regulation
No 1367/2006 of ensuring a general principle of access to “information […] [which]
relates to emissions into the environment”, that concept must 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.’18
In this context, it is important to underline that the Court of Justice acknowledges that
‘the purpose of access to environmental information provided by […] [Regulation
1367/2006] is, inter alia, to promote more effective public participation in the decision-
making process, thereby increasing, on the part of the competent bodies, the
accountability of decision-making and contributing to public awareness and support for
the decisions taken. In order to be able to ensure that the decisions taken by the
competent authorities in environmental matters are justified and to participate effectively
in decision-making in environmental matters, the public must have access to information
enabling it to ascertain whether the emissions were correctly assessed and must be given
17 Judgment of the Court of Justice of 23 November 2016,
Commission v Stichting Greenpeace
Nederland and PAN Europe, Case C-673/13 P, EU:C:2016:889.
18 Ibid, paragraph 79.
9
the opportunity reasonably to understand how the environment could be affected by those
emissions’19 (emphasis added).
In the present case, however, there are several reasons why the withheld information in
the documents requested does not fall under the above-mentioned definition of 'emissions
into the environment'. Firstly, the decision has not yet been taken by the competent
authorities, who are in the process of assessing the information provided by the
applicants. Although the purpose of Regulation (EC) No 1307/2006, as explained by the
Court of Justice, is to increase, on the part of the competent bodies, the accountability of
decision-making contributing to public awareness and support for the decisions taken, it
is not to substitute the decision-making process of the competent institutions through a
public review.
The Court of Justice has specified that ‘the interpretation of “information on emissions
into the environment” […] does not in any way mean that all data contained in files for
authorisation to place plant protection products or biocides on the market, in particular,
all data from studies carried out in order to obtain that authorisation, are covered by that
concept and must always be disclosed. Only data relating to “emissions into the
environment” are covered by that concept, which excludes, inter alia, not only
information which does not concern emissions from the product in question into the
environment, but also […] information which relates to hypothetical emissions, that is to
say emissions which are not actual or foreseeable from the product or substance in
question under representative circumstances of normal or realistic conditions of use’20.
The withheld information relates to the alternative studies submitted or cases referred to
by the applicant and to the reasons provided when claiming equivalence to the study used
to approve an active substance. This information is clearly not related to emissions into
the environment, as it is information supporting the claim of the applicant that its active
substance data package is equivalent to the one used to approve (or renew the approval
of) an active substance. In addition, information on an active substance that is not
released as such into the environment does not fulfil the criteria developed by the Court
of Justice.
The Court of Justice has explicitly underlined the need not to render void any legitimate
protection of commercial interests:
‘(…) while […] it is not necessary to apply a restrictive interpretation of the concept of
“information [which] relates 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 (EC) No 1367/2006 of any meaning. Such an interpretation
would deprive of any practical effect the possibility, laid down in the first indent of
19 Judgment of the Court of Justice of 23 November 2016,
Bayer CropScience SA-NV and Stichting De
Bijenstichting v College voor de toelating van gewasbeschermingsmiddelen en biociden, Case
C-442/14, EU:C:2016:890, paragraph 100.
20 Ibid.
10
Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) 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. It would
would jeopardise the balance which the EU legislature intended
to maintain between the objective of transparency and the protection of those
interests also constitute a disproportionate interference with the protection of business
secrecy ensured by Article 339 [of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union]’ (emphasis added).
This conclusion is reinforced by a judgment of the General Court, which states that it is
‘only at the stage of the national authorisation procedure to place
a specific plant
protection product on the market that the Member State assesses any emissions into the
environment and that specific information emerges concerning the nature, composition,
quantity, date and place of the actual or foreseeable emissions, under such conditions,
from the active substance and the specific plant protection product containing it’.21
The full disclosure of the requested documents at this stage would indeed lead to a
disproportionate undermining of the protection of the rights ensured by Articles 16 and
17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and by Article 39(3) of
the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights.
I therefore conclude that there is no public interest capable of overriding the public and
private interests protected by Article 4(2), third indent of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001
for the withheld (parts of) the requested documents.
The fact that the documents relate to an administrative procedure and not to any
legislative act, for which the Court of Justice has acknowledged the existence of wider
openness,22 provides further support to this conclusion.
Please also note that Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 does not include
the possibility for the exceptions defined therein to be set aside by an overriding public
interest.
The fact that the requested documents are now partially released only reinforces this
conclusion.
21 Judgment of the General Court of 21 November 2018,
Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and Pesticide
Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) v Commission, Case T-545/11 RENV, EU:T:2018:817,
paragraph 88.
22 Judgment of the Court of Justice of 29 June 2010,
Commission v Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau
Gmbh, Case C-139/07 P EU:C:2010:376, paragraphs 53-55 and 60 and judgment in Case C-28/08 P,
cited above, paragraphs 56-57 and 63.
11
5.
MEANS OF REDRESS
Finally, I draw your attention to the means of redress available against this decision. You
may either bring proceedings before the General Court or file a complaint with the
European Ombudsman under the conditions specified respectively in Articles 263 and
228 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
Yours sincerely,
For the Commission
Martin SELMAYR
Secretary-General
Enclosures: (2)
12