EuGH · C-330/25

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Ninth Chamber) 10 September 2026 ( *1 ) (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Environment – Aarhus Convention – Directive 2003/4/EC – Right of access to environmental information held by or for public authorities – Article 2(2)(a) – Concept of ‘public authority’ – Legal person responsible for the public broadcasting service) In Case C‑330/25, REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the High Court (Ireland), made by decision of 21 March 2025, received at the Court on 14 May 2025, in the proceedings Raidió Teilifís Éireann (RTÉ) v Commissioner for Environmental Information, intervening parties: RIGHT TO KNOW CLG, European Broadcasting Union, Ireland, the Attorney General, Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications, Minister for Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sports and Media, THE COURT (Ninth Chamber), composed of M. Condinanzi (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, R. Frendo and A. Kornezov, Judges, Advocate General: J. Kokott, Registrar: A. Calot Escobar, having regard to the written procedure, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of: – Raidió Teilifís Éireann (RTÉ), by A. McManus, acting as Agent, and by A. Carroll, Senior Counsel, and F. Valentine, Senior Counsel, – the Commissioner for Environmental Information, by G. Fitzgerald, acting as Agent, and by B. Foley, Senior Counsel, and C. Hogan, Barrister-at-Law, – Right to Know CLG, by D. Browne, Senior Counsel, and F. Logue, Solicitor, – European Broadcasting Union, by D. Waelbroeck and D. Fosselard, avocats, and I. Antypas, avocate, – the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications and the Minister for Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sports and Media, by M. Browne, Chief State Solicitor, A. Joyce, C. Minogue and S. Finnegan, acting as Agents, and by B. Kennedy, Senior Counsel, and T. Donnelly, Barrister-at-Law, – the Polish Government, by B. Majczyna, acting as Agent, – the Norwegian Government, by I. Thue and B. Stankovic, acting as Agents, – the European Commission, by I. Melo Sampaio and D. Milanowska, acting as Agents, having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion, gives the following Judgment 1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 2(1) and (2), and Article 6(1) and (2) 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 (OJ 2003 L 41, p. 26), Article 9(1) and (4) of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, signed in Aarhus on 25 June 1998 and approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005 (OJ 2005 L 124, p. 1) (‘the Aarhus Convention’), and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’). 2 The request has been made in proceedings between Raidió Teilifís Éireann (RTÉ) and the Commissioner for Environmental Information concerning a request for access to environmental information made by Right to Know CLG (‘RTK’) to RTÉ. Legal context International law 3 Under Article 2(2) of the Aarhus Convention: ‘“Public authority” means: (a) government at national, regional and other level; (b) natural or legal persons performing public administrative functions under national law, including specific duties, activities or services in relation to the environment; (c) any other natural or legal persons having public responsibilities or functions, or providing public services, in relation to the environment, under the control of a body or person falling within subparagraphs (a) or (b) above; (d) the institutions of any regional economic integration organisation referred to in Article 17 which is a Party to this Convention. This definition does not include bodies or institutions acting in a judicial or legislative capacity’. 4 Article 4(1) of that convention provides that, subject to a number of reservations and conditions, each party to that convention is to ensure that public authorities, in response to a request for environmental information, make such information available to the public, within the framework of national legislation. 5 Article 9 of the Aarhus Convention, entitled ‘Access to justice’, provides, in paragraphs 1 and 4: ‘1. Each Party shall, within the framework of its national legislation, ensure that any person who considers that his or her request for information under article 4 has been ignored, wrongfully refused, whether in part or in full, inadequately answered, or otherwise not dealt with in accordance with the provisions of that article, has access to a review procedure before a court of law or another independent and impartial body established by law. … 4. In addition and without prejudice to paragraph 1 above, the procedures referred to in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 above shall provide adequate and effective remedies, including injunctive relief as appropriate, and be fair, equitable, timely and not prohibitively expensive. Decisions under this article shall be given or recorded in writing. Decisions of courts, and whenever possible of other bodies, shall be publicly accessible.’ European Union law 6 Recital 5 of Directive 2003/4 states: ‘… Provisions of Community law must be consistent with [the Aarhus] Convention with a view to its conclusion by the European Community.’ 7 Article 1 of that directive provides: ‘The objectives of this directive are: (a) to guarantee the right of access to environmental information held by or for public authorities and to set out the basic terms and conditions of, and practical arrangements for, its exercise; and (b) to ensure that, as a matter of course, environmental information is progressively made available and disseminated to the public in order to achieve the widest possible systematic availability and dissemination to the public of environmental information. To this end the use, in particular, of computer telecommunication and/or electronic technology, where available, shall be promoted.’ 8 Under Article 2(1) and (2) of that directive: ‘For the purposes of this Directive: 1. “Environmental information” shall mean any information in written, visual, aural, electronic or any other material form on: … 2. “Public authority” shall mean: (a) government or other public administration, including public advisory bodies, at national, regional or local level; (b) any natural or legal person performing public administrative functions under national law, including specific duties, activities or services in relation to the environment, and (c) any natural or legal person having public responsibilities or functions, or providing public services, relating to the environment under the control of a body or person falling within (a) or (b). Member States may provide that this definition shall not include bodies or institutions when acting in a judicial or legislative capacity. If their constitutional provisions at the date of adoption of this directive make no provision for a review procedure within the meaning of Article 6, Member States may exclude those bodies or institutions from that definition.’ 9 Article 3(1) of that directive provides: ‘Member States shall ensure that public authorities are required, in accordance with the provisions of this Directive, to make available environmental information held by or for them to any applicant at his request and without his having to state an interest.’ 10 Article 6 of Directive 2003/4, entitled ‘Access to justice’, provides in paragraphs 1 and 2 thereof: ‘1. Member States shall ensure that any applicant who considers that his request for information has been ignored, wrongfully refused (whether in full or in part), inadequately answered or otherwise not dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Articles 3, 4 or 5, has access to a procedure in which the acts or omissions of the public authority concerned can be reconsidered by that or another public authority or reviewed administratively by an independent and impartial body established by law. Any such procedure shall be expeditious and either free of charge or inexpensive. 2. In addition to the review procedure referred to in paragraph 1, Member States shall ensure that an applicant has access to a review procedure before a court of law or another independent and impartial body established by law, in which the acts or omissions of the public authority concerned can be reviewed and whose decisions may become final. Member States may furthermore provide that third parties incriminated by the disclosure of information may also have access to legal recourse.’ Irish Law The 2007 Irish national rules 11 Article 3(1) of the European Communities (Access to Information on the Environment) Regulations 2007 (‘the 2007 Irish national rules’), which transpose Directive 2003/4 into Irish law, provides: ‘… In these regulations– … “public authority” means … (a) government or other public administration, including public advisory bodies, at national, regional or local level, (b) any natural or legal person performing public administrative functions under national law, including specific duties, activities or services in relation to the environment, and (c) any natural or legal person having public responsibilities or functions, or providing public services, relating to the environment under the control of a body or person falling within paragraph (a) or (b), and includes– … (vi) a board or other body (but not including a company under the Companies Acts) established by or under statute, (vii) a company under the Companies Acts, in which all the shares are held– (I) by or on behalf of a Minister of the Government, (II) by directors appointed by a Minister of the Government, (III) by a board or other body within the meaning of paragraph (vi), or (IV) by a company to which subparagraph (I) or (II) applies, having public administrative functions and responsibilities, and possessing environmental information; …’ 12 Article 7 of the 2007 Irish national rules provides: ‘(1) A public authority shall, notwithstanding any other statutory provision and subject only to these Regulations, make available to the applicant any environmental information, the subject of the request, held by, or for, the public authority. (2) (a) A public authority shall make a decision on a request and, where appropriate, make the information available to the applicant as soon as possible and, at the latest, but subject to paragraph (b) and sub-article (10), not later than one month from the date on which such request is received by the public authority concerned. … (4) Where a decision is made to refuse, in whole or in part, a request for environmental information, the public authority concerned shall– (a) … notify the applicant of the decision not later than one month following receipt of the request, … (c) specify the reasons for the refusal, (d) inform the applicant of his or her rights of internal review and appeal in accordance with these Regulations, including the time within which such rights may be exercised. (5) Where a request is made to a public authority and the information requested is not held by or for the authority concerned, that authority shall inform the applicant as soon as possible that the information is not held by or for it. …’ 13 Article 11 of those rules provides: ‘(1) Where the applicant’s request has been refused under article 7, in whole or in part, the applicant may, not later than one month following receipt of the decision of the public authority concerned, request the public authority to review the decision, in whole or in part. (2) Following receipt of a request for a review under sub-article (1), the public authority concerned shall designate a person unconnected with the original decision whose rank is the same as, or higher than, that of the original decision-maker to review the decision and that person shall– (a) affirm, vary or annul the decision, and (b) where appropriate, require the public authority to make available environmental information to the applicant, in accordance with these Regulations. (3) A decision under sub-article (2) shall be notified to the applicant within one month from receipt of the request for the internal review. …’ 14 Article 12 of those rules states: ‘(1) There is established the office of Commissioner for Environmental Information and the holder of the office shall be known as the Commissioner for Environmental Information and shall be independent in the performance of his or her functions. … (4) (a) An appeal under this article shall be initiated– (i) not later than one month after receipt of the decision under article 11(3), or (ii) where no decision is notified by a public authority, not later than one month from the time when a decision was required to be notified under article 11(3). … (5) Following receipt of an appeal under this article, the Commissioner shall– (a) review the decision of the public authority, (b) affirm, vary or annul the decision concerned, specifying the reasons for his or her decision, and (c) where appropriate, require the public authority to make available environmental information to the applicant, in accordance with these Regulations. … (7) A public authority shall comply with a decision of the Commissioner under sub-article (5) within [three] weeks after its receipt. …’ 15 Article 13(1) the 2007 Irish national rules states that a party to an appeal under article 12 or any other person affected by the decision of the Commissioner may appeal to the High Court on a point of law from the decision. The Broadcasting Act 2009 16 Under section 2(1) of the Broadcasting Act 2009: ‘“corporation” means RTÉ or TG4 or both, as the case may be; … “Raidió Teilifís Éireann” means the authority established under section 3 of the Broadcasting Authority Act 1960; … “RTÉ” means Raidió Teilifís Éireann; …’ 17 Section 81(1) the Broadcasting Act 2009 provides that the number of members of the board of a corporation is to be 12 in number, which are generally appointed by the Government or, failing that, on the nomination of the relevant minister. 18 Section 114(1) of that act provides: ‘The objects of RTÉ are– (a) to establish, maintain and operate a national television and sound broadcasting service which shall have the character of a public service, be a free-to-air service and be made available, in so far as it is reasonably practicable, to the whole community on the island of Ireland, (b) to establish and maintain a website in connection with the services of RTÉ under paragraphs (a), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h) and (i), (c) to establish and maintain a concert orchestra and other cultural performing groups in connection with the services of RTÉ under paragraphs (a), (f), (g) and (h), (d) to assist and co-operate with the relevant public bodies in preparation for, and execution of, the dissemination of relevant information to the public in the event of a major emergency, (e) to establish and maintain archives and libraries containing materials relevant to the objects of RTÉ under this subsection, (f) to establish, maintain and operate a television broadcasting service and a sound broadcasting service which shall have the character of a public service, which services shall be made available, in so far as RTÉ considers reasonably practicable, to Irish communities outside the island of Ireland, (g) subject to the consent of the Minister, the Minister having consulted with the Authority, to establish, maintain and operate, in so far as it is reasonably practicable, community, local, or regional broadcasting services, which shall have the character of a public service, and be available free-to-air, (h) subject to the consent of the Minister, the Minister having consulted with the Authority, to establish and maintain audiovisual on-demand media services, in so far as it is reasonably practicable, which shall have the character of a public broadcasting service (such consent not being required in respect of such services which are ancillary to a broadcasting service provided under paragraphs (a), (d), (f) and (g)), (i) to establish, maintain, and operate one or more national multiplexes, (j) so far as it is reasonably practicable, to exploit such commercial opportunities as may arise in pursuit of the objects outlined in paragraphs (a) to (i).’ 19 Section 123 of that act states: ‘(1) The Minister, with the approval of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, may pay to [RTÉ] out of monies provided by the Oireachtas [(the Irish Parliament)], in respect of [each financial year], an amount equal to the total of the receipts in that year in respect of television licence fees … … (2) The amount paid to RTÉ in each financial year under subsection (1) of this section, shall be used by RTÉ solely for the purposes of– (a) pursuing its public service objects … … (3) The Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, may from time to time, pay to RTÉ such an amount as he or she determines to be reasonable for the purposes of defraying the expenses incurred by RTÉ in the pursuance of its public service objects. …’ The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling 20 RTÉ is the national public broadcaster in Ireland. It is a legal person governed by public law which was established by the Broadcasting Authority Act 1960. The main objectives and powers of RTÉ, as provided for in section 114 of the Broadcasting Act 2009, consist in establishing, maintaining and operating a national television broadcasting service and a national sound broadcasting service which are to have the character of a public service and are to be made available to the whole community on the island of Ireland. 21 All members of the board of RTÉ are appointed by the Government and are, according to the order for reference, required to report to the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications, the Oireachtas and the public as to the performance of their functions. 22 Pursuant to section 123(1) of the Broadcasting Act 2009, the relevant minister may pay to RTÉ out of monies provided by the Oireachtas in respect of each financial year subsequent to the passing of that act an amount equal to the total of the receipts in that year in respect of television licence fees, less expenses and payments to the Broadcasting Fund. RTÉ is also obliged to earn commercial revenue. Pursuant to section 114(1)(j) of the Broadcasting Act 2009, RTÉ is obliged to exploit commercial opportunities as may arise in pursuit of its public service objectives. 23 On 19 July 2021, RTK, a non-profit organisation governed by Irish law, made a request for information to RTÉ in respect of three categories of environmental information, namely, first, copies of any guidance, training or other such advice issued to RTÉ journalists on how to communicate or cover climate change to an audience, with this part of the request covering the period from 1 January 2020 to 19 July 2021, secondly, a record of how many representations RTÉ received regarding its coverage of climate change over the same period, and, thirdly, a copy of all representations or correspondence received by RTÉ relating to its coverage of climate change issues in 2021 with it being stated that, if there was a large volume of correspondence, a representative sample of roughly 25 items of correspondence would be acceptable. The reason for that request was the fact that RTÉ, according to RTK, in its reporting on climate change, resorted to the practice known as ‘false balance’, which consisted in also presenting the viewpoints of climate change deniers despite the existence of a broad consensus concerning the existence of and harm caused by that phenomenon. 24 It is apparent from the order for reference that, since it employs hundreds of journalists and broadcasts numerous programmes, each with their own contact details, RTÉ limited its search to its main communication channels. It therefore searched two inboxes corresponding to its two main contact email addresses and its telephone log using the search term ‘climate change’. 25 By decision of 17 August 2021, RTÉ stated that it did not have any documents falling within the first two categories of environmental information referred to in paragraph 23 above. It communicated, in part, voluntarily and without acknowledging any legal duty to do so, a number of documents falling within the third category of environmental information referred to in paragraph 23 above, stating that they did not constitute a ‘representative’ sample since not all of the documents covered by RTK’s request had been examined. 26 Following an internal review within RTÉ, that decision was upheld by decision of 14 September 2021. Moreover, RTÉ deemed that the information falling within that third category was not ‘environmental information’, within the meaning of the national legislation transposing Directive 2003/4. 27 On 29 September 2021, RTK lodged an administrative appeal against that decision with the Commissioner for Environmental Information. In the course of that procedure, RTÉ submitted, inter alia, that it was not a ‘public authority’ within the meaning of Article 3 of the 2007 Irish national rules. 28 By decision of 30 November 2023, the Commissioner for Environmental Information found, in essence, that RTÉ had to be classified as a ‘public authority’ and that the information requested constituted ‘environmental information’ within the meaning of the 2007 Irish national rules. 29 On 30 January 2024, RTÉ brought an appeal before the High Court (Ireland), which is the referring court, seeking the annulment of that decision. 30 In that context, as regards assessing the merits of that decision, the referring court is uncertain, in the first place, whether RTÉ must be classified as a ‘public authority’ within the meaning of Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2003/4 in respect of all of its functions or only in respect of those which are not within the scope of journalistic activity per se, editorial processes, editorial decision-making and the exercise of the right to freedom of expression. 31 In that regard, the referring court states that the Commissioner for Environmental Information, in his decision, classified RTÉ as a ‘public authority’ within the meaning of Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2003/4 in respect of all of its functions, by applying the test in the judgment of 19 December 2013, Fish Legal and Shirley (C‑279/12, EU:C:2013:853). 32 However, that court regards RTÉ as having mixed features in so far as it carries out privileged journalistic activity involving, inter alia, the ability to interact with sources and send internal editorial communications concerning sources, all while carrying out, in parallel, tasks in the public interest under public law. It therefore argues that RTÉ may constitute a ‘public authority’ within the meaning of Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2003/4 in respect of its functions other than privileged journalistic activity. 33 In the second place, the referring court harbours doubts as to the definition of the concept of ‘environmental information’, found in Article 2(1) of Directive 2003/4, and, more specifically, the meaning of the expression ‘in … any other material form’ contained in that definition. It therefore seeks to ascertain whether that definition must be understood as requiring the public body concerned to create a record, in material form, of the information sought in the context of a request for information made under that directive, in circumstances where that information does not otherwise exist in material form. In that regard, the referring court argues that the response must be negative, since a positive response would create obligations not provided for by Directive 2003/4. 34 In the third place, the referring court observes that, if it had to regard RTÉ as a public authority within the meaning of Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2003/4, it would nevertheless not be able to resolve definitively the dispute in the main proceedings since, in the present case, it would be required, under national procedural law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court (Ireland), to remit the dispute in the main proceedings to the Commissioner for Environmental Information so that he or she may make fresh findings of fact or evaluative judgments. Such a remittal would be likely to cause a delay that is incompatible with the requirement that remedies be timely and free of charge or inexpensive, which stems from Article 6 of Directive 2003/4, Article 9 of the Aarhus Convention and Article 47 of the Charter. Consequently, the referring court argues that, whenever a national court finds that a remittal for the purpose of fresh findings of fact or evaluative judgments would cause a delay in breach of those provisions, that court should be entitled, after carrying out a full examination of all the relevant elements of fact and law submitted by the parties, to find the facts itself and/or make those evaluative judgements, even where a national procedural rule prohibits that. 35 In those circumstances, the High Court decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Does the definition of “public authority” in Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2003/4 have the effect that a legal person governed by public law and amenable to judicial review which has been set up by the State through statute law, which the State alone can dissolve, but having as its primary purpose broadcasting, journalism, editorial processes and decision-making and/or the pursuit of the right of free expression, and which is publicly appointed and accountable but is independent in its functions and funded by both commercial revenue and public monies: (a) is to be treated as a public authority in respect of all of its functions; (b) is to be treated as a public authority in respect of its functions other than privileged journalistic activity such as interaction with sources and functions capable of affecting the privilege associated with such activity such as internal editorial communications concerning sources; (c) is to be treated as a public authority in respect of its functions other than those concerning broadcasting, journalism, editorial processes and decision-making and/or the pursuit of the right of free expression; or (d) is not to be treated as a public authority? (2) If the answer to the first question is in a sense equivalent to (a) or (b) in that question, does the definition of “environmental information” in Article 2(1) of Directive 2003/4 and in particular the term “material form” have the effect that where a request is made seeking information as to the number of records of a particular type, the public body concerned is required to count the number of such records and create a record of that number embodying the requested information in material form, if the information does not otherwise exist in material form apart from the extent to which it is capable of being extrapolated by counting the records concerned? (3) Does Article 6(1) and/or (2) of Directive 2003/4 and/or Article 9(1) and/or (4) of the Aarhus Convention and/or Article 47 of the [Charter] insofar as the foregoing relate to the requirement that remedies be timely and/or expeditious and/or effective have the effect that a court acting under Article 6(2) of Directive 2003/4 and/or Article 9(1) and/or (4) of the Aarhus Convention and/or Article 47 of the [Charter] is entitled or required to interpret national law to the maximum extent possible (and/or to disapply any national rule of procedure that would preclude such a course of action) so as to enable the court to make a final decision on the request to which the review procedure or judicial procedure relates, including by coming to findings of fact and evaluative judgments after making a full and ex nunc examination of all the relevant elements of fact and law submitted by the parties, in circumstances where remittal of the matter to the public body or to a subordinate review body for further fact-finding or evaluative judgments or a fresh decision would be likely in the view of the court to occasion further delay which could jeopardise the timely and/or expeditious finalisation of the outcome of the request for information?’ Consideration of the questions referred Preliminary observations 36 It should be recalled that, by becoming a party to the Aarhus Convention, the European Union undertook to ensure, within the scope of EU law, a general principle of access to environmental information held by public authorities (judgment of 19 December 2013, Fish Legal and Shirley, C‑279/12, EU:C:2013:853, paragraph 35 and the case-law cited). 37 As recital 5 in the preamble to Directive 2003/4 confirms, in adopting that directive the European Union legislature intended to ensure the consistency of EU law with the Aarhus Convention by providing for a general scheme to ensure that any natural or legal person in a Member State has a right of access to environmental information held by or on behalf of public authorities, without that person having to state an interest (see, to that effect, judgment of 19 December 2013, Fish Legal and Shirley, C‑279/12, EU:C:2013:853, paragraph 36 and the case-law cited). 38 It follows that, for the purposes of interpreting Directive 2003/4, account is to be taken of the wording and aim of the Aarhus Convention, which that directive is designed to implement in EU law (judgment of 19 December 2013, Fish Legal and Shirley, C‑279/12, EU:C:2013:853, paragraph 37 and the case-law cited). 39 In addition, the Court has already held that, while the document published by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe entitled ‘The Aarhus Convention: an Implementation Guide’ (‘the Aarhus Convention Implementation Guide’), may be regarded as an explanatory document, capable of being taken into consideration, if appropriate, among other relevant material for the purpose of interpreting the convention, the observations in the guide have no binding force and do not have the normative effect of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention (judgment of 19 December 2013, Fish Legal and Shirley, C‑279/12, EU:C:2013:853, paragraph 38 and the case-law cited). 40 Finally, it should also be noted that the right of access guaranteed by Directive 2003/4 applies only to the extent that the information requested meets the requirements for public access laid down by that directive, which means inter alia that the information must be ‘environmental information’ within the meaning of Article 2(1) of that directive, a matter which is for the referring court to determine in the main proceedings (judgment of 19 December 2013, Fish Legal and Shirley, C‑279/12, EU:C:2013:853, paragraph 39 and the case-law cited). The first question 41 By its first question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2003/4 alone must be interpreted as meaning that a legal person governed by public law that is created by the State pursuant to a statute and which can be dissolved only by the State, the members of whose board are appointed by the Government, which is funded by both public monies and commercial revenue, and which mainly carries out broadcasting and journalistic activities, all while remaining independent in the exercise of its functions and benefiting from the protection linked to freedom of expression, must be classified as a ‘public authority’ within the meaning of that provision, and, if so, whether it must be so classified in respect of all of its functions or only in respect of certain functions, those being solely its functions other than those directly connected to journalistic activity, editorial processes, the protection of sources and the exercise of the right to freedom of expression. 42 According to settled case-law, it follows from the need for a uniform application of EU law and the principle of equality that a provision of EU law which makes no express reference to the law of the Member States for the purpose of determining its meaning and scope, such as Article 2(2) of Directive 2003/4, must normally be given an independent and uniform interpretation throughout the European Union, having regard not only to the wording of that provision but also to the context in which it occurs and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part (judgment of 21 May 2026, FZ AR and SX (Freezing of assets in trust), C‑428/24 and C‑476/24, EU:C:2026:409, paragraph 85). 43 Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2003/4 makes no reference to national laws as regards the meaning of the terms used in that provision. It follows that those terms must be regarded, for the purposes of applying that directive, as designating an autonomous concept of EU law which must be interpreted in a uniform manner throughout the Member States. 44 As regards the wording of Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2003/4, it refers to ‘government or other public administration, including public advisory bodies, at national, regional or local level’. 45 So far as concerns the context of that provision, the Aarhus Convention, which, as stated in paragraph 38 above, should be taken into account for the purpose of interpreting the text of that directive, defines, in Article 2(2)(a) thereof, the concept of ‘public authority’ as being ‘government at national, regional and other level’, thus using terms that are analogous, albeit not identical, to those found in Article 2(2) of Directive 2003/4. 46 In that regard, the Aarhus Convention Implementation Guide states that the term ‘public authority’ referred to in Article 2(2)(a) of that convention encompasses agencies, institutions, departments, bodies, etc., with political power at all geographical or administrative levels. In a general sense, that term also covers national ministries and agencies, and their regional and local offices, State, regional or provincial ministries and agencies, and their regional and local offices, and local or municipal government offices, such as those found in cities, towns or villages. Furthermore, the Aarhus Convention Implementation Guide explains that, under that convention, public authorities are not limited to ‘environmental authorities’ within government. All governmental authorities, at all levels, are covered by Article 2(2)(a) of that convention. 47 As regards the objectives pursued by Directive 2003/4, Article 1(a) and (b) thereof states that it aims to guarantee the right of access to environmental information held by or for public authorities, to set out the basic terms and conditions of, and practical arrangements for, the exercise of that right and to achieve the widest possible systematic availability and dissemination to the public of such information (judgment of 19 December 2013, Fish Legal and Shirley, C‑279/12, EU:C:2013:853, paragraph 66). 48 Therefore, the implementation of those objectives means that the administrative authorities must give public access to environmental information in their possession, in order to give an account of the decisions they take in that field and to connect citizens with the adoption of those decisions (see, to that effect, judgment of 15 April 2021, Friends of the Irish Environment, C‑470/19, EU:C:2021:271, paragraph 37). 49 It is therefore apparent from both the Aarhus Convention and Directive 2003/4, that, in referring to ‘public authorities’, the authors intended to refer to administrative authorities, since within States it is those authorities that are usually required to hold environmental information in the exercise of their functions (see, to that effect, judgment of 14 February 2012, Flachglas Torgau, C‑204/09, EU:C:2012:71, paragraph 40). 50 Thus, in defining three categories of public authorities, Article 2(2) of that directive is intended to cover a set of entities, whatever their legal form, that must be regarded as constituting public authority, be it the State itself, an entity empowered by the State to act on its behalf or an entity controlled by the State (judgment of 19 December 2013, Fish Legal and Shirley, C‑279/12, EU:C:2013:853, paragraph 67). 51 More specifically, according to the definition in Article 2(2)(a) and (b) of Directive 2003/4, the concept of ‘public authorities’, which are subject, as such, to the obligation to give the public access to environmental information held by them, covers bodies and institutions under the aegis of the ‘government or other public administration, including public advisory bodies, at national, regional or local level’, and any natural or legal person performing, under national law, ‘public administrative functions, including specific duties, activities or services in relation to the environment’. Under Article 2(2)(c) of that directive, public authorities are also natural or legal persons ‘having public responsibilities or functions, or providing public services, relating to the environment under the control of a body or person falling within (a) or (b)’ (see, to that effect, judgment of 15 April 2021, Friends of the Irish Environment, C‑470/19, EU:C:2021:271, paragraph 30). 52 When called on to interpret Article 2(2) of Directive 2003/4, the Court has already held that only entities which, organically, are administrative authorities, namely those which form part of the public administration or the executive of the State at any level, are public authorities for the purposes of Article 2(2)(a) of that directive. That category includes all legal persons governed by public law which have been set up by the State and which the State alone can decide to dissolve (see, to that effect, judgment of 19 December 2013, Fish Legal and Shirley, C‑279/12, EU:C:2013:853, paragraph 51). 53 It therefore follows from that case-law that, in order for a legal person governed by public law, which is established by the State and which the State alone can decide to dissolve, to be able to be covered by the concept of ‘public authority’, within the meaning of Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2003/4, it is also necessary that that legal person be an administrative authority which organically forms part of the public administration or executive of the State. 54 In the present case, it is apparent from the order for reference that the dispute in the main proceedings concerns the request for access, made by RTK which is a non-governmental organisation, to environmental information, which was issued both in the context of guidance, training or other such advice provided to RTÉ journalists on how to communicate or cover climate change to the public, and in representations or correspondence received by RTÉ regarding its media coverage of that phenomenon. 55 It will therefore be for the referring court to determine, in the light of the conditions set out in paragraphs 48 and 49 above, whether RTÉ must be regarded as a ‘public authority’, within the meaning of Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2003/4, in which case it would fall within the scope of that directive as regards, inter alia, access to environmental information contained in documents it possesses, or whether, on account of not organically forming part of the government or public administration, it cannot be qualified as such and cannot, therefore, fall within the scope of that article. 56 However, the Court, in the context of a reference for a preliminary ruling, may provide the referring court with guidance, on the basis of the documents relating to the main proceedings and the observations which have been submitted to it, in order to enable that court to resolve the dispute before it (see, to that effect, judgment of 23 April 2026, AXA Bank Belgium and Others, C‑761/24, EU:C:2026:339, paragraph 43 and the case-law cited). 57 In that regard, in the first place, it is apparent from the information before the Court that it is for the referring court to verify that RTÉ is not organically an administrative authority and does not organically form part of the public administration or executive of the State. It does not form part of either the governmental services at national level or the public authorities at regional or local level, and there is no evidence in the order for reference that makes it possible to regard it as a public advisory body. 58 In the second place, according to the information in the order for reference, RTÉ does not appear to participate in the political or administrative decision-making process, even in an advisory role. By their very nature, its activities do not consist in adopting administrative decisions. Although they may be classified as public services, within the meaning of section 114(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 2009, RTÉ’s activities appear to be limited to television broadcasting, journalism and auxiliary activities in those fields. 59 In the third place, even though it was established by the State and the Government appoints the members of its board, it is apparent from the order for reference that RTÉ remains independent in pursuing its objectives, as section 98 of the Broadcasting Act 2009 provides. In accordance with section 87(d) of that act, every member of RTÉ’s board is to perform his or her functions in such a manner as to safeguard the independence of RTÉ from State, political and commercial influences. 60 In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the first question is that Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2003/4 must be interpreted as meaning that a legal person governed by public law that is created by the State pursuant to a statute and which can be dissolved only by the State, the members of whose board are appointed by the Government, which is funded by both public monies and commercial revenue, and which mainly carries out broadcasting and journalistic activities, all while remaining independent in the exercise of its functions and benefiting from the protection linked to freedom of expression, but which does not organically form part of the public administration or executive of the State, cannot be classified as a ‘public authority’ within the meaning of that provision. The second and third questions 61 In view of the answer given to the first question, there is no need to answer the second and third questions. Costs 62 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable. On those grounds, the Court (Ninth Chamber) hereby rules: Article 2(2)(a) 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 a legal person governed by public law that is created by the State pursuant to a statute and which can be dissolved only by the State, the members of whose board are appointed by the Government, which is funded by both public monies and commercial revenue, and which mainly carries out broadcasting and journalistic activities, all while remaining independent in the exercise of its functions and benefiting from the protection linked to freedom of expression, but which does not organically form part of the public administration or executive of the State, cannot be classified as a ‘public authority ’ within the meaning of that provision. Condinanzi Frendo Kornezov Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 10 September 2026. A. Calot Escobar Registrar M. Condinanzi President of the Chamber ( *1 ) Language of the case: English.