74 - Coillte and the meaning of “applicant” under…

Introduction

The CJEU recently handed down a riveting judgment in Case C‑129/24, Coillte Cuideachta Ghníomhaíochta Ainmnithe v Commissioner for Environmental Information (15 January 2026). The case addresses whether the term “applicant” in Article 2(5) of Directive 2003/4/EC on public access to environmental information (which implements the Aarhus Convention in the EU) requires a requester to identify themselves by their actual name and current physical address. The Court held that it does not, but that Member States are not precluded from having such a requirement in domestic law, provided national rules comply with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness (para 44).

A short summary of the judgment

The dispute in Coillte arose from a large volume of access to environmental information requests received by Coillte, a commercial forestry undertaking partly owned by the Irish State. Between 10 March and 7 June 2022, Coillte received 130 requests, 97 of which were submitted anonymously or under pseudonyms, often in identical formats and without a physical address. Coillte asked those requesters to confirm their legal names and provide a current address. When they failed to do so, it treated the requests as invalid and declined to determine them (paras 2, 16–18).

When internal review requests were then made, Coillte again sought confirmation of names and addresses and warned that, absent verification, the reviews would be rejected as invalid. Names and addresses were again not provided, and Coillte accordingly again rejected those review requests. 81 rejection decisions were the subject of administrative appeals to the Commissioner, who held that Coillte was not justified in treating the requests as invalid. Coillte appealed the Commissioner’s decision to the High Court, which referred the dispute to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling.

The High Court considered that the anonymised or pseudonymised requests likely originated from a single source or a coordinated campaign and that anonymity could be used to abuse the system in a way that could disrupt public authorities’ operations. It noted that Irish regulations required an applicant’s name and address, understood in domestic law as the actual name and a current physical address, and questioned whether that interpretation was compatible with Directive 2003/4 and the Aarhus Convention (paras 23–24).

Five questions were referred under Article 267 TFEU. The essence of the reference, treated together by the Court, asked whether “applicant” under Article 2(5) of Directive 2003/4, read in light of the Aarhus Convention, requires identification by actual name and/or current physical address, and, if not, whether national legislation may nevertheless require such identification consistently with EU law. (paras 25-26)

The Court began with the wording, context and objectives of Directive 2003/4. It noted that “applicant” is defined as any natural or legal person requesting environmental information and that neither the Directive nor the Aarhus Convention makes the status of applicant conditional on disclosure of an actual name or current physical address. (paras 28-36, 31-33) The Court then observed that public authorities could not be required to provide the same information repeatedly within a very short timeframe following a significant number of identical requests from the same person. It noted that authorities do not have unlimited resources and such patterns may undermine the effectiveness of access for others. Finally, it concluded that, in the absence of EU rules prescribing the detailed practical arrangements for access, it is for Member States to lay down rules to ensure requests are actually made by natural or legal persons and to prevent abusive patterns, subject to the principles of equivalence and effectiveness (paras 37-38).

Applying those principles, the Court observed that Irish law’s requirements for name and address served a (reasonable) objective of enabling authorities to verify that a request emanates from a real person and to notify decisions and, where appropriate, the requested information. Nothing before the Court suggested a breach of equivalence, and requiring name and/or current physical address did not, in itself, make access to environmental information impossible in practice or excessively difficult (paras 39-42). On effectiveness, the Court was not persuaded 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.” (para 43)

The Court thus concluded that the concept of “applicant” under Article 2(5) does not itself require identification by actual name and/or physical address, but that the Directive does not preclude national legislation that requires such identification, provided the national rules comply with equivalence and effectiveness. (para 44)

Commentary

The Court’s position is measured and workable. On the one hand, it confirms that EU law’s definition of “applicant” is generous and textually unconstrained by identification formalities. On the other, it preserves Member State discretion to prescribe practical arrangements that include an identification requirement, so long as national rules are equivalent to those governing comparable domestic situations and do not render access impossible or excessively difficult. That approach reflects the Court’s familiar reliance on a margin of appreciation for Member States to design the nuts and bolts of procedural regimes around a common EU core.

The judgment balances effective access for “any applicant,” in accordance with the legislation’s objectives, with orderly administration, in light of its acknowledgment of the operational pressures that public authorities face and the legitimacy of proportionate verification as a practical safeguard. (see para 37) This is sensible. Anonymous or pseudonymous campaigns can overwhelm already stretched information teams, diverting time from substantive responses. A narrowly tailored identification requirement that enables verification without probing motives or interests, can reduce costs and deter abusive patterns while preserving the right of access.

The Court’s insistence that any national rule must not create excessive difficulty is the check against disproportionate barriers: while identification may be required, it cannot be weaponised to shut out legitimate requesters. That is likely to be the fault line in future access‑to‑information disputes: will some authorities be tempted to ratchet up identification or other procedural requirements thereby drifting to the disproportionate end of the scale?

This blog post was written by Margherita Cornaglia.

----------------

Authors of the Aarhus blogs

– James Maurici KC – James has been in many of the leading cases on Aarhus costs including: R (RSPB) v SSJ [2017] 5 Costs L.O. 691; Case C 530/11 Commission v United Kingdom; Case C-260/11 Edwards v EA; R (Edwards) v EA (No.2) [2011] 1 Costs L.R. 70 and [2013] UKSC 78; and R (Edwards) v EA [2011] 1 W.L.R. 79. He has also appeared a number of times before the UNECE Aarhus Compliance Committee in Geneva, cases include: ACCC/C/2010/45; ACCC/C/2010/53; ACCC/C/2011/60; ACCC/C/2011/61; ACCC/C/2012/77; ACCC/C/2014/100 and 101; ACCC/C/2017/150. He is currently acting on the Free Trade Agreement Communication ACCC/C/2022/194. He was one of the contributors to the Aarhus Convention: A Guide for UK Lawyers (2015) and he has written and lectured extensively on the Aarhus Convention.

– Jacqueline Lean – Jacqueline has also been instructed on a number of matters concerning the Aarhus Convention, including appearing (with James Maurici KC) for United Kingdom before the Aarhus Compliance Committee on two communications concerning the Government’s decision to proceed with HS2 (ACCC/C/100 & 101); representing the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Secretary of State in R (CPRE Kent) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2019] EWCA Civ 1230 in which the Court of Appeal considered the approach to summary assessment of costs at permission stage when an Aarhus costs cap applied; and acting for the Secretary of State in R (RSPB) v Secretary of State for Justice [2018] Env LR 13, a challenge to the Government’s amendments to the Aarhus costs protections in the CPR (also with James Maurici KC). She is also a contributing author to Coppel’s ‘Information Rights’ on Environmental Information.

– Nick Grant – Nick joined Chambers in 2019 and has regularly advised on Aarhus related matters. He has represented the UK twice before the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee, appearing with James Maurici KC in ACCC/C/2017/150 (the Withdrawal Act case) and unled in the admissibility hearing for ACCC/C/2022/194 (the free trade agreements case).

– Margherita Cornaglia – Margherita’s public law practice often involves acting in claims raising environmental and climate change related issues. For instance, she acted as junior counsel in the judicial review of the Government’s Third National Adaptation Programme (NAP3), pursued with an Aarhus costs cap, advancing novel arguments under Part 4 of the Climate Change Act. She also acted as junior counsel for community claimants in the Launders Lane litigation, challenging Havering Council’s refusal to designate Arnold’s Field as contaminated land; that claim likewise proceeded with Aarhus costs protection to secure effective participation and accountability. Beyond litigation, she has advised solicitors on the Government’s recent consultation concerning access to justice in relation to the Aarhus Convention, drawing on her broader practice representing NGOs and affected communities in environmental and climate cases.

– Alex Shattock – Alex has been involved in a number of environmental claims including Friends of the Earth v SSLUHC (the Cumbria coal mine case: acting for Friends of the Earth in the Planning Inquiry and High Court, with Paul Brown KC and Toby Fisher); Cox and Ors v Oil and Gas Authority [2022] EWHC 75 (Admin) (representing Extinction Rebellion activists in a challenge to the Oil and Gas Authority’s Strategy, with David Wolfe KC and Merrow Golden); R (Hough) v SSHD [2022] EWHC 1635 (acting for the claimant in an environmental and equalities challenge to the controversial use of Napier Barracks as asylum seeker accommodation, with Alex Goodman KC and Charles Bishop). He regularly advises individual and NGO clients on Aarhus costs protection. Alex also has a keen interest in treaty law generally. He has a masters and PhD in public international law and has been involved in various treaty negotiations and treaty ratification processes.

– Rebecca Sage – Rebecca is a junior tenant at Landmark Chambers with a growing practice in planning and environmental law. She is regularly instructed on matters engaging the Aarhus Convention, usually through the lens of judicial review. Rebecca has a developing interest in this complex and important area of the law and its implications for access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice.