Opinion of Advocate General Kokott delivered on 15 December 2022

1 Original language: German.

2 Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, done at Aarhus, Denmark, on 25 June1998 (OJ 2005 L 124, p. 4), approved by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005 (OJ 2005 L 124, p. 1).

3 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 (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13).

4 Judgments of 2 December 2009, Commission v Ireland and Others ( C‑89/08 P, EU:C:2009:742, paragraph 61), and of 24 January 2013, Frucona Košice v Commission ( C‑73/11 P, EU:C:2013:32, paragraph 88).

5 Judgments of 2 April 1998, Commission v Sytraval and Brink’s France ( C‑367/95 P, EU:C:1998:154, paragraph 67), and of 10 December 2013, Commission v Ireland and Others ( C‑272/12 P, EU:C:2013:812, paragraph 28).

6 See judgments of 11 July 1990, Neotype Techmashexport v Commission and Council ( C‑305/86 and C‑160/87, EU:C:1990:295, paragraph 18); of 2 May 2006, Regione Siciliana v Commission ( C‑417/04 P, EU:C:2006:282, paragraph 36); of 29 November 2007, Stadtwerke Schwäbisch Hall and Others v Commission ( C‑176/06 P, not published, EU:C:2007:730, paragraph 18); and of 5 December 2019, Commission v Spain (Waste management plans) ( C‑642/18, EU:C:2019:1051, paragraph 19).

7 Building on the judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2011, Evropaïki Dynamiki v EIB ( T‑461/08, EU:T:2011:494, paragraph 35 et seq.).

8 Judgments of 12 September 2006, Reynolds Tobacco and Others v Commission ( C‑131/03 P, EU:C:2006:541, paragraph 54), and of 12 July 2022, Nord Stream 2 v Parliament and Council ( C‑348/20 P, EU:C:2022:548, paragraph 62).

9 Judgments of 12 September 2006, Reynolds Tobacco and Others v Commission ( C‑131/03 P, EU:C:2006:541, paragraph 54), and of 26 January 2010, Internationaler Hilfsfonds v Commission ( C‑362/08 P, EU:C:2010:40, paragraph 51).

10 Judgments of 9 July 2020, Czech Republic v Commission ( C‑575/18 P, EU:C:2020:530, paragraph 47), and of 12 July 2022, Nord Stream 2 v Parliament and Council ( C‑348/20 P, EU:C:2022:548, paragraph 63).

11 Judgments of 12 September 2019, TestBioTech and Others v Commission ( C‑82/17 P, EU:C:2019:719, paragraphs 37 and 38), and of 3 September 2020, Mellifera v Commission ( C‑784/18 P, not published, EU:C:2020:630, paragraphs 63 and 64). The judgment of 6 October 2021, ClientEarth v Commission ( C‑458/19 P, EU:C:2021:802) also presupposes this.

12 Footnotes 13 and 14 to recitals 14 and 15 of Regulation (EU) 2021/1767 (OJ 2021 L 356, p. 1).

13 Moreover, if Article 271(c) TFEU were applicable to the present dispute, the General Court would lack jurisdiction under Article 256(1) TFEU; see judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2011, Evropaïki Dynamiki v EIB ( T‑461/08, EU:T:2011:494, paragraph 39).

14 Judgments of 12 September 2019, TestBioTech and Others v Commission ( C‑82/17 P, EU:C:2019:719, paragraph 37), and of 3 September 2020, Mellifera v Commission ( C‑784/18 P, not published, EU:C:2020:630, paragraph 63).

15 Judgments of 12 September 2019, TestBioTech and Others v Commission ( C‑82/17 P, EU:C:2019:719, paragraph 38), and of 3 September 2020, Mellifera v Commission ( C‑784/18 P, not published, EU:C:2020:630, paragraph 64).

16 Moreover, if Article 271(c) TFEU were applicable to the present dispute, the General Court would lack jurisdiction under Article 256(1) TFEU; see judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2011, Evropaïki Dynamiki v EIB ( T‑461/08, EU:T:2011:494, paragraph 39).

17 See also judgments of 3 March 1988, Commission v EIB ( 85/86, EU:C:1988:110, paragraph 28), and of 10 July 2003, Commission v EIB ( C‑15/00, EU:C:2003:396, paragraph 101).

18 See, in particular, recitals 3 and 18 and Article 1(1) of the Aarhus Regulation and the judgment of 3 September 2020, Mellifera v Commission ( C‑784/18 P, not published, EU:C:2020:630, paragraph 88).

19 See judgments of 24 November 1992, Anklagemindigheden v Poulsen and Diva Navigation ( C‑286/90, EU:C:1992:453, paragraph 9); of 3 September 2008, Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission ( C‑402/05 P and C‑415/05 P, EU:C:2008:461, paragraph 291); of 21 December 2011, Air Transport Association of America and Others ( C‑366/10, EU:C:2011:864, paragraph 123); of 11 July 2018, Bosphorus Queen Shipping ( C‑15/17, EU:C:2018:557, paragraph 44); and of 3 September 2020, Mellifera v Commission ( C‑784/18 P, not published, EU:C:2020:630, paragraph 77); and, specifically regarding the Aarhus Convention, judgments of 8 March 2011, Lesoochranárske zoskupenie ( C‑240/09, EU:C:2011:125, paragraph 50); of 12 May 2011, Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland, Landesverband Nordrhein-Westfalen ( C‑115/09, EU:C:2011:289, paragraph 41); and of 15 January 2013, Križan and Others ( C‑416/10, EU:C:2013:8, paragraph 77).

20 Judgment of 3 September 2008, Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission ( C‑402/05 P and C‑415/05 P, EU:C:2008:461, paragraph 282).

21 Judgment of 3 October 2013, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v Parliament and Council ( C‑583/11 P, EU:C:2013:625, paragraph 97).

22 See, to that effect, judgment of 28 March 2017, Rosneft ( C‑72/15, EU:C:2017:236, paragraph 74). See also judgment of 20 December 2017, Protect Natur-, Arten- und Landschaftschutz Umweltorganisation ( C‑664/15, EU:C:2017:987, paragraph 45).

23 See points 21 to 25 above.

24 Memorandum of Understanding between the European Ombudsman and the European Investment Bank of 9 July 2008 concerning information on the Bank’s policies, standards and procedures and the handling of complaints, including complaints from non-citizens and non-residents of the European Union (https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/document/en/3809).

25 Report of 6 September 2021, Curtis biomass power generation plant (complaint No SG/E/2019/04).

26 See, for example, decision of the European Ombudsman of 18 February 2013 in Case 48/2012/MHZ – alleged mishandling of a complaint against the EIB and decision of 27 April 2022 on how the European Investment Bank (EIB) weighed the environmental impact assessments of the Trans Adriatic Pipeline and the Trans-Anatolian Pipeline before financing the projects (Case 2030/2020/NH).

27 See, in that regard, my Opinion in Edwards ( C‑260/11, EU:C:2012:645, point 8), and the Opinions of Advocate General Cruz Villalón in Gemeinde Altrip and Others ( C‑72/12, EU:C:2013:422, point 101); of Advocate General Jääskinen in Council and Others v Vereniging Milieudefensie and Stichting Stop Luchtverontreiniging Utrecht (C‑401/12 P to C‑403/12 P, EU:C:2014:310, point 114), and in Council and Commission v Stichting Natuur en Milieu and Pesticide Action Network Europe ( C‑404/12 P and C‑405/12 P, EU:C:2014:309, point 23); and of Advocate General Bobek in Folk ( C‑529/15, EU:C:2017:1, point 86), and Stichting Varkens in Nood and Others ( C‑826/18, EU:C:2020:514, point 77).

28 EIB, EIB Group Complaints Mechanism Policy (2018, p. 5); see, for example, the findings and recommendations of the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee of 3 April 2009, Civic Alliance for the Protection of the Bay of Vlora (Albania)/European Community (ACCC/C/2007/21, ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2009/2/Add.1, paragraph 26).

29 See, in particular, the eighth and ninth recitals of the preamble and Articles 6 to 8 of the Aarhus Convention.

30 See findings and recommendations of the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee of 29 April 2008, Wium-Andersen v Denmark (ACCC/C/2006/18, ECE/MP.PP/2008/5/Add.4, paragraphs 28 and 33).

31 Judgments of 3 March 1988, Commission v EIB ( 85/86, EU:C:1988:110, paragraph 24), and of 10 July 2003, Commission v EIB ( C‑15/00, EU:C:2003:396, paragraph 75).

32 Judgments of 3 March 1988, Commission v EIB ( 85/86, EU:C:1988:110, paragraphs 29 and 30), and of 10 July 2003, Commission v EIB ( C‑15/00, EU:C:2003:396, paragraph 102).

33 Findings and recommendations of the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee of 3 April 2009, Civic Alliance for the Protection of the Bay of Vlora (Albania)/European Community (ACCC/C/2007/21, ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2009/2/Add.1, paragraph 26).

34 EIB, EIB Group Complaints Mechanism Policy (2018, p. 5).

35 See point 19 above.

36 See, to that effect, judgments of 20 December 2017, Protect Natur-, Arten- und Landschaftsschutz Umweltorganisation ( C‑664/15, EU:C:2017:987, paragraph 47), and of 8 November 2022, Deutsche Umwelthilfe (Approval of motor vehicles) ( C‑873/19, EU:C:2022:857, paragraph 68).

37 Cited in footnote 12.

38 See points 92 and 93 above.

39 Judgments of 3 March 1988, Commission v EIB ( 85/86, EU:C:1988:110, paragraphs 29 and 30), and of 10 July 2003, Commission v EIB ( C‑15/00, EU:C:2003:396, paragraph 102).

40 See, in particular, judgment of 20 December 2017, Protect Natur-, Arten- und Landschaftsschutz Umweltorganisation ( C‑664/15, EU:C:2017:987).

41 Judgments of 27 October 1977, Regina v Bouchereau ( 30/77, EU:C:1977:172, paragraphs 13 and 14); of 27 March 1990, Milk Marketing Board v Cricket St Thomas ( C‑372/88, EU:C:1990:140, paragraph 19); and of 6 October 2021, Consorzio Italian Management e Catania Multiservizi and Catania Multiservizi ( C‑561/19, EU:C:2021:799, paragraph 43).

42 Judgments of 27 March 1990, Milk Marketing Board v Cricket St Thomas ( C‑372/88, EU:C:1990:140, paragraph 18), and of 26 January 2021, Hessischer Rundfunk ( C‑422/19 and C‑423/19, EU:C:2021:63, paragraph 65).

43 Judgments of 1 March 2016, Alo and Osso ( C‑443/14 and C‑444/14, EU:C:2016:127, paragraph 27), and of 24 February 2022, Tiketa ( C‑536/20, EU:C:2022:112, paragraph 27).

44 See point 69 above.

45 English: provisions of its national law; French: dispositions du droit national.

46 положения национального законодательства.

47 French: droit de l’environnement.

48 Paragraph 1 of the preamble.

49 Paragraph 6 of the preamble.

50 Paragraph 6 of the preamble.

51 See judgments of 26 June 1975, Commission v Council ( 70/74, EU:C:1975:93, paragraphs 20 to 23); of 28 June 2005, Dansk Rørindustri and Others v Commission ( C‑189/02 P, C‑202/02 P, C‑205/02 P to C‑208/02 P and C‑213/02 P, EU:C:2005:408, paragraph 211); and of 16 February 2017, H & R ChemPharm v Commission ( C‑95/15 P, not published, EU:C:2017:125, paragraph 57).

52 See judgments of 11 November 1981, IBM v Commission ( 60/81, EU:C:1981:264, paragraph 10); of 22 June 2000, Netherlands v Commission ( C‑147/96, EU:C:2000:335, paragraphs 26 and 27); and of 6 May 2021, ABLV Bank v ECB ( C‑551/19 P and C‑552/19 P, EU:C:2021:369, paragraph 39).

53 Judgments of 11 November 1981, IBM v Commission ( 60/81, EU:C:1981:264, paragraph 20); of 13 October 2011, Deutsche Post and Germany v Commission ( C‑463/10 P and C‑475/10 P, EU:C:2011:656, paragraph 51); of 15 March 2017, Stichting Woonlinie and Others v Commission ( C‑414/15 P, EU:C:2017:215, paragraph 45) and Stichting Woonpunt and Others v Commission ( C‑415/15 P, EU:C:2017:216, paragraph 45).

54 Judgments of 11 November 1981, IBM v Commission ( 60/81, EU:C:1981:264, paragraph 12); of 13 October 2011, Deutsche Post and Germany v Commission ( C-463/10 P and C-475/10 P, EU:C:2011:656, paragraph 53); of 15 March 2017, Stichting Woonlinie and Others v Commission ( C-414/15 P, EU:C:2017:215, paragraph 46) and Stichting Woonpunt and Others v Commission ( C-415/15 P, EU:C:2017:216, paragraph 46).