EU Court Orders Disclosure of Proprietary Information on Chemical Substance; May Impact Disclosure Laws Abroad

by K&L Gates LLP

The General Court of the European Union (EU) recently delivered a judgment requiring the disclosure of proprietary information related to a pesticide ingredient. The Court’s decision may affect companies that have previously provided proprietary information on chemicals to EU regulators with the expectation it would be protected from public disclosure. [1] The judgment may signal an expanded interpretation of EU disclosure requirements and an erosion of laws protecting proprietary information, and has the potential to impact legislative and policy developments in the United States and in other jurisdictions.

EU Regulation 1049/2001 and “emissions into the environment”
EU Regulation 1049/2001 requires EU institutions and agencies to disclose documents held by them to any EU citizen, resident or company on request, subject to certain exceptions. [2] For example, a request must be refused if the disclosure would undermine the protection of the commercial interests of a person or company, including intellectual property. However, under EU Regulation 1367/2006, that exception does not apply where there is an overriding public interest in disclosure of the information; an overriding public interest is deemed to exist if the information requested relates to “emissions into the environment.” [3]

Greenpeace and the Pesticide Action Network requested information from the European Commission relating to the identity and quantity of impurities present in glyphosate (N-(phosphonomethyl) glycine, an active substance in widely-used, broad-spectrum pesticides); the analytical profile of the batches, in particular their composition; the “identity” and quantity of chemical substances added during the tests; the duration of those tests; and the actual effects on the active substance. That information had been provided to the Commission in the context of authorization of glyphosate as an active substance for pesticides under Directive 91/414 on plant protection products.

The judgment of the Court focuses on the single issue of whether the information requested related in a sufficiently direct manner to emissions into the environment, in which case disclosure is mandatory, notwithstanding the proprietary nature or commercial interest in nondisclosure.

The EU Commission initially concluded that the information requested by Greenpeace and the Pesticide Action Network was protected from public disclosure. The General Court disagreed. In its judgment annulling the Commission’s decision, the General Court ruled that since the active substance will be included in a pesticide that will ultimately be released into the air, principally by spraying, the following information related, in a sufficiently direct manner, to emissions into the environment:

  • the “identity” and the quantity of each impurity contained in the active substance;
  • the quantity of all the impurities present in the various lots and the minimum, median and maximum quantity of each of those impurities;
  • the exact quantities, per kilogramme or per litre, of the active substance and of adjuvants used in their manufacture.

In contrast, the Court found that the methods of analysis and validation of the data provided to establish the analytical profile of batches did not constitute information relating to emissions into the environment, since it did not appear to allow the determination, in a sufficiently direct manner, of the level of emission into the environment of the various components of the active substance.

This judgment is significant for companies that have submitted data to EU regulatory agencies with the expectation that the information would be protected against public disclosure in order to maintain the submitter’s commercial interests. Where such data relates in a sufficiently direct manner to emissions into the environment, the agency will have to disclose it on request. According to the Court, the phrase information relating to emissions into the environment is to be interpreted broadly, based on “an overriding public interest” in the disclosure of such information. [4]

U.S. implications
This judgment parallels emerging policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) favoring increased public disclosure of information and efforts to narrow the type of information considered “confidential business information” (CBI) and thereby protected from public disclosure.

Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), companies are currently required to provide notice to the government if they obtain information “which reasonably supports the conclusion that such substance or mixture presents a substantial risk of injury to health or the environment.” [5] However, the identity of the chemical and other health and safety data included in such notifications have been historically treated as CBI and protected from public disclosure. In 2010, the U.S. EPA began tightening its policy on CBI assertions as part of its efforts to increase transparency. [6] As part of this ongoing effort, U.S. EPA has been scrutinizing CBI claims and encouraging companies to voluntarily declassify information it believes should now be publicly disclosed. [7]

In effect, U.S. EPA is seeking to change the balance between the benefits of protecting proprietary information (e.g., increased innovation, investment and certainty in commerce) and the benefits of greater public disclosure of that information (e.g., increased ability of consumers to make informed choices about product purchases, and to take voluntary precautions against exposure), in favor of the latter.

At the same time, Congress is actively considering a bipartisan measure to overhaul TSCA, including provisions addressing CBI protections. Congress and policymakers in the United States may take a cue from their European counterparts and further expand information disclosure requirements as they relate to substances that may affect the environment. In a statement of the Administration’s stance towards TSCA reform, the U.S. EPA recently stated that TSCA reform should include “stricter requirements for a manufacturer’s claim of [CBI].” [8] Significantly, it goes on to say that EPA “should be able to negotiate with other governments (local, state, and foreign) on appropriate sharing of CBI with the necessary protections, when necessary to protect public health and safety.” [9]

Additionally, the United States’ Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. § 136 et seq., protects against public disclosure nearly all information the pesticide registrant designates as CBI (with a few exceptions). While these FIFRA CBI protections will remain in place in the United States for the foreseeable future, any similar claims for emissions-related information submitted by United States pesticide manufacturers to support their pesticide product registrations in the EU are now at risk. In other words, the Court’s decision is a potential back-door method to obtain historically-considered proprietary emissions-related information in the EU that is otherwise protected as CBI by the U.S. EPA under FIFRA. Where such data relates in a sufficiently direct manner to emissions into the environment, the European agency will have to disclose it on request.

The Greenpeace and Pesticide Action Network judgment raises new and significant questions. For example, the standards governing the protection of CBI in the EU and other jurisdictions may be different from the standards under which the CBI was or is initially submitted to the U.S. EPA. The judgment of the EU General Court suggests that any information held by an EU agency, regardless of its source or origin, will be subject to disclosure if it relates in a sufficiently direct manner to emissions into the environment, regardless of whether the same information is protected from disclosure in the U.S. or other jurisdictions.

As political pressure mounts to increase disclosure, companies manufacturing and distributing products that require the submission of proprietary, confidential information to U.S. or EU government agencies should pay close attention to developments in information disclosure laws and regulations around the globe, particularly given their potential to impact one another. In order to help protect or limit such disclosures of proprietary information by the Commission and other EU institutions and agencies (including the European Chemicals Agency) going forward, manufacturers and importers of pesticides and other EU-regulated substances and mixtures should consider steps to help group and classify emission-related data so that it is not commingled with other information that would be considered proprietary. This could help prevent inadvertent disclosure of such non-emissions-related proprietary information by the Commission pursuant to EU Regulation 1367/2006.

[1] Case T-545/11 Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and Pesticide Action Network Europe v Commission.

[2] This regulation is similar in many ways to the United States’ disclosure requirements under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552.

[3] Regulation (EC) No. 1367/2006, Art. 6.1.

[4] Id.

[5] Such disclosures are required by TSCA Section 8(e), 15 U.S.C. § 2607(e).

[6] U.S. EPA, Increasing Transparency in TSCA, (last accessed Oct. 25, 2013).

[7] See U.S. EPA, TSCA CBI Declassification Challenge, available at (last accessed Oct. 25, 2013).

[8] U.S. EPA, Essential Principles for Reform of Chemicals Management Legislation, Principle No. 5 (last updated Dec. 20, 2012), available at (last accessed Oct. 20, 2013).

[9] Id.


DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© K&L Gates LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

K&L Gates LLP

K&L Gates LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.