Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 January 2026. – Coillte Cuideachta Ghníomhaíochta Ainmnithe v Commissioner for Environmental Information.

1

This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 2(5), Article 3(1), Article 3(5)(c), Article 4(1)(b) and Article 6(1) 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), read in the light 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’).

2

The request has been made in proceedings between Coillte Cuideachta Ghníomhaíochta Ainmnithe (‘Coillte’), a commercial forestry undertaking partly owned by the Irish State, and the Commissioner for Environmental Information (Ireland) (‘the Commissioner’) concerning the latter’s decision finding that Coillte had unjustifiably treated as invalid several requests for access to environmental information.

3

Article 2 of the Aarhus Convention, headed ‘Definitions’, provides in paragraphs 4 and 5 thereof:

‘4.   “The public” means one or more natural or legal persons, and, in accordance with national legislation or practice, their associations, organisations or groups;

5.   “The public concerned” means the public affected or likely to be affected by, or having an interest in, the environmental decision-making; for the purposes of this definition, non-governmental organisations promoting environmental protection and meeting any requirements under national law shall be deemed to have an interest.’

4

Article 3 of that convention, entitled ‘General provisions’, states, in paragraph 8 thereof:

‘Each Party shall ensure that persons exercising their rights in conformity with the provisions of this Convention shall not be penalised, persecuted or harassed in any way for their involvement. This provision shall not affect the powers of national courts to award reasonable costs in judicial proceedings.’

5

Article 4 of the said convention, entitled ‘Access to environmental information’, provides:

‘1.   Each party shall ensure that, subject to the following paragraphs of this article, public authorities, in response to a request for environmental information, make such information available to the public, within the framework of national legislation, including, where requested and subject to subparagraph (b) below, copies of the actual documentation containing or comprising such information:

2.   The environmental information referred to in paragraph 1 above shall be made available as soon as possible and at the latest within one month after the request has been submitted, unless the volume and the complexity of the information justify an extension of this period up to two months after the request. The applicant shall be informed of any extension and of the reasons justifying it.

3.   A request for environmental information may be refused if:

…

…’

6

Article 6(1) and (2) of the Aarhus Convention defines the scope of the rules on public participation in decisions on specific activities and the content of environmental information communicated to the public at the start of the decision-making process.

7

Recitals 8 and 15 of Directive 2003/4 are worded as follows:

…

8

Article 1 of that directive, entitled ‘Objectives’, states:

‘The objectives of this Directive are:

9

Under Article 2 of the said directive, headed ‘Definitions’:

‘For the purposes of this Directive:

…

10

Article 3 of the same directive, entitled ‘Access to environmental information upon request’, provides:

‘1.   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.

…

5.   For the purposes of this Article, Member States shall ensure that:

…

11

Article 4 of Directive 2003/4, entitled ‘Exceptions’, provides:

‘1.   Member States may provide for a request for environmental information to be refused if:

…

…

5.   A refusal to make available all or part of the information requested shall be notified to the applicant in writing or electronically, if the request was in writing or if the applicant so requests, within the time limits referred to in Article 3(2)(a) or, as the case may be, (b). The notification shall state the reasons for the refusal and include information on the review procedure provided for in accordance with Article 6.’

12

Article 6 of that directive, ‘Access to justice’, provides, in paragraph 1 thereof:

‘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.’

13

The European Communities (Access to Information on the Environment) Regulations 2007-2018 (‘the Irish national rules’) are intended to transpose Directive 2003/4 into Irish law.

14

Section 6 of the Irish national rules, entitled ‘Request for environmental information’, provides:

‘1.   A request for environmental information shall–

…

(2)   An applicant shall not be required to state his or her interest in making the request.’

15

Section 12 of the Irish national rules, entitled ‘Appeal to [the Commissioner]’, provides, in paragraph 3 thereof, inter alia that, where a decision of a public authority refusing a request for environmental information has been affirmed, in whole or in part, following an internal review of that refusal decision, the applicant may appeal to the Commissioner against that decision.

16

Between 10 March and 7 June 2022, Coillte received 130 requests for access to environmental information. 97 of those requests originated from anonymous applicants or applicants using pseudonyms generally inspired by film characters and were presented in an identical or almost identical format, without a physical address being provided (‘the anonymised or pseudonymised requests’).

17

Taking the view that the anonymous or pseudonymised requests were not genuinely seeking to elicit environmental information, but were part of an organised campaign engaged in for questionable motives such as disrupting its operations, Coillte asked the applicants concerned to provide it with their current addresses and to confirm that, in those requests, they had used their real legal names.

18

Having received no response, Coillte, in essence, rejected the anonymised or pseudonymised requests as invalid and, thus, did not provide the environmental information requested within the period prescribed by the national legislation.

19

The requesters concerned then requested Coillte to carry out an internal review of those rejection decisions. Coillte again asked those applicants to confirm or indicate their legal names and to provide it with their current addresses, while stating that it was not requiring them to indicate the reason for their requests for environmental information and that, unless they provided the requested confirmation, their requests for internal review would be rejected.

20

That information not having been provided, the requests for internal review were rejected as invalid.

21

Of those rejection decisions, 81 were the subject of administrative appeals to the Commissioner, lodged between 13 June and 4 July 2022. Ruling on the first 58 cases of rejection, the Commissioner adopted, on 29 August 2022, a decision finding that Coillte had not been justified in treating the requests for environmental information concerned as invalid under Section 6(1)(c) of the Irish national rules.

22

Coillte brought an appeal against that decision before the High Court (Ireland), which is the referring court.

23

That court considers that the anonymised or pseudonymised requests probably originated from a single source or were part of a coordinated campaign, since they ceased abruptly at the same time. Thus, anonymity could have been used by certain applicants to abuse the procedure for access to environmental information intentionally so as to disrupt the public authorities’ operations. The said court considers that Coillte acted reasonably in determining whether the requests concerned were manifestly abusive by reference to the volume, nature and frequency of other requests made by the same applicant, and that there is no evidence that providing an applicant’s actual name and/or current physical address could indirectly give rise to inference or speculation on the part of the public authority or others as to the interest of the applicant – if any – referred to in Article 3(1) of Directive 2003/4.

24

The referring court notes that, according to the Irish national rules, the terms ‘name’ and ‘address’ designate, respectively, the applicant’s actual and a current physical address at which he or she may be contacted. Accordingly, it expresses doubts as to, in essence, the compatibility of those rules, as interpreted in domestic law, with Directive 2003/4, read in the light of the Aarhus Convention.

25

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:

26

By its questions, which it is appropriate to examine together, the referring court asks, in essence, whether the concept of ‘applicant’, within the meaning of Article 2(5) of Directive 2003/4, read in the light of the Aarhus Convention, must be interpreted as meaning that it requires a natural or legal person to be identified by his or her actual name and/or a current physical address and, if not, whether it precludes national legislation which requires such identification of the applicant.

27

In that regard, according to settled case-law, it follows from both the need for a uniform application of EU law and the principle of equality that the terms of 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 must normally be given an independent and uniform interpretation throughout the European Union, having regard not only to its wording but also to the context in which it occurs and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part (see judgments of 18 January 1984, Ekro, 327/82, EU:C:1984:11, paragraph 11, and of 8 April 2025, European Public Prosecutor’s Office (Judicial review of procedural acts), C‑292/23, EU:C:2025:255, paragraph 51).

28

Regarding the wording of Article 2(5) of Directive 2003/4, that provision defines the concept of ‘applicant’ as ‘any natural or legal person requesting environmental information’.

29

Nevertheless, the said provision does not make the status of ‘applicant’ subject to identification of the natural or legal person requesting environmental information by indicating his or her actual name and/or current physical address.

30

Nor does such a requirement follow from the context in which Article 2(5) of Directive 2003/4 occurs.

31

Article 3(1) of that directive provides that Member States are to ensure that public authorities are required to make available environmental information held by or for them ‘to any applicant at his request and without his having to state an interest’.

32

Admittedly, it is apparent from that provision that the validity of a ‘request’ addressed to a public authority for access to environmental information held by or for it is subject to the requirement that that request be made by an ‘applicant’, the latter concept referring, as has been recalled in paragraph 28 of the present judgment, to ‘any natural or legal person requesting environmental information’. However, that provision does not impose an obligation, on the applicant concerned, to provide his or her actual name and/or current physical address when such a request is made or, consequently, an obligation on the Member States to request such information.

33

That absence of an obligation on the Member States to require, under Directive 2003/4, the actual name and/or current physical address of the applicant concerned is not called into question by the objectives pursued by that directive set out in Article 1 thereof, namely, first, 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, second, 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.

34

Nor does the absence of an obligation on Member States to require the actual name and/or current physical address of the applicant concerned call into question the objective of the said directive of implementing the Aarhus Convention in EU law by providing for a general scheme to ensure that any applicant has a right of access to environmental information held by or on behalf of the public authorities, without having to state an interest (see, to that effect, judgments of 19 December 2013, Fish Legal and Shirley, C‑279/12, EU:C:2013:853, paragraph 37, and of 23 November 2023, Right to Know, C‑84/22, EU:C:2023:910, paragraph 33 and the case-law cited).

35

The attainment of those objectives in no way requires that the status of ‘applicant’, within the meaning of that directive, be made subject to the identification of the natural or legal person requesting environmental information.

36

With regard more specifically to the Aarhus Convention, it should be noted that, while Article 4 of that convention, which is reproduced, in essence, in Article 3 of Directive 2003/4, requires the public authorities to make such information available ‘to the public’, defined in Article 2(4) of the said convention as referring to ‘one or more natural or legal persons, and, in accordance with national legislation or practice, their associations, organisations or groups’, it is also not apparent from Article 4 of that convention that natural or legal persons should identify themselves when making a request for access to environmental information.

37

That being so, Directive 2003/4 does not require the public authorities to make environmental information held by them or on their behalf available to any entity other than a natural or legal person. Nor does that directive require those authorities, after having given a natural or legal person access to that information, to give access to the said information, within a very short period of time, following a significant number of identical requests made by that same natural or legal person. Such requests are liable to affect the effectiveness of access to environmental information of other natural or legal persons, given that the public authorities do not have unlimited resources.

38

Accordingly, in the absence of provisions of EU law defining more precisely the practical arrangements for access to environmental information, it is for the Member States to define in their respective legal systems detailed rules for ensuring that requests for access to environmental information are actually made by natural and legal persons and do not constitute requests such as those referred to in paragraph 37 of the present judgment. However, those detailed rules must not be less favourable than those governing similar situations subject to domestic law (principle of equivalence) or make it impossible in practice or excessively difficult to exercise rights conferred by EU law (principle of effectiveness) (see, to that effect, judgment of 6 October 2015, East Sussex County Council, C‑71/14, EU:C:2015:656, paragraph 52 and the case-law cited).

39

In this case, the Irish national rules require any request for access to environmental information to indicate the actual name and/or current physical address of the applicant. It follows from the order for reference that one of the objectives of that requirement is to enable the national public authorities to verify that such a request does indeed emanate from a natural or legal person and to notify that person both of the decision to be taken in response to that request and, where appropriate, of the information requested.

40

As far as the principle of equivalence is concerned, it should be noted that the Court does not have before it any element liable to raise doubts as to the conformity of those rules with that principle.

41

Regarding the principle of effectiveness, it should be noted that disclosing the actual name and/or current physical address of the applicant concerned does not make it impossible in practice or excessively difficult to exercise the right of access to environmental information conferred by EU law.

42

In those circumstances, legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings may require that any ‘applicant’, within the meaning of Article 2(5) of Directive 2003/4, be identifiable by the public authority to which a request for access to environmental information is made, by name, address and any other relevant contact information.

43

That conclusion is not called into question by the claims of certain parties that such identification could lead the public authorities concerned or third parties to speculate, where appropriate, on the basis of the identity or indeed the physical address of the applicants concerned, as to their interest in obtaining access to environmental information. Even if such data were indirectly liable to lead such an authority or third parties to draw conclusions concerning any interest of those applicants, it is apparent from paragraph 31 of the present judgment that such a conclusion would not affect the outcome of their requests.

44

In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the questions asked is that the concept of ‘applicant’, within the meaning of Article 2(5) of Directive 2003/4, read in the light of the Aarhus Convention, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require a natural or legal person to be identified by his or her actual name and/or a current physical address, but does not preclude national legislation which requires such identification of the applicant, in compliance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness.

45

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 (Fifth Chamber) hereby rules:

The concept of ‘applicant’, within the meaning of Article 2(5) 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, read in the light 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,

must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require a natural or legal person to be identified by his or her actual name and/or a current physical address, but does not preclude national legislation which requires such identification of the applicant, in compliance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness.