Is Article 113 of the Control Regulation compatible with the public’s right of access to environmental information and documents?

The document argues that Article 113 of the Control Regulation allows EU Member States to unconditionally veto the disclosure of fisheries data, which contradicts the Aarhus Convention, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, and Regulation 1049/2001. It criticizes the General Court's judgment in Malta v Commission for upholding this veto power without requiring a statement of reasons. ClientEarth proposes amending Article 113 to require reasoned refusals and explicitly align the regulation with EU and international transparency frameworks.

• Article 113 of the Control Regulation, specifically the second subparagraph, makes public access to documents containing information collected under the regulation conditional on the express consent of the transmitting Member State.
• The General Court of the EU ruled in Malta v Commission that Article 113(2) and (3) establish the prior and express consent of the Member State as an unqualified condition for public access, and that Member States are not required to provide reasons for opposing disclosure.
• The interpretation of Article 113 in Malta v Commission is incompatible with the Aarhus Convention and the Aarhus Regulation because it fails to recognize that much of the fisheries data constitutes "environmental information" and ignores the obligation to state reasons for refusing access.
• The document asserts that Article 113 disproportionately undermines the right of access to documents guaranteed by Article 42 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and may limit rights to high-level environmental and consumer protection.
• The General Court's application of Regulation 1049/2001 is criticized for effectively discarding it in favor of the Control Regulation, thereby bypassing the standard substantive exceptions and the general obligation to state reasons for refusal.
• The lack of transparency resulting from Article 113 prevents decision-makers, fishers, and civil society from assessing the effective implementation of the Control Regulation, which may jeopardize the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy.

APA

ClientEarth (2020). Is Article 113 of the Control Regulation compatible with the public’s right of access to environmental information and documents? https://www.clientearth.org/media/1honw0ky/eu-fisheries-control-regulation-article-113-legal-briefing-ce-en.pdf

Chicago

ClientEarth. Is Article 113 of the Control Regulation compatible with the public’s right of access to environmental information and documents? 2020. https://www.clientearth.org/media/1honw0ky/eu-fisheries-control-regulation-article-113-legal-briefing-ce-en.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=ClientEarth |title=Is Article 113 of the Control Regulation compatible with the public’s right of access to environmental information and documents? |date=October 2020 |url=https://www.clientearth.org/media/1honw0ky/eu-fisheries-control-regulation-article-113-legal-briefing-ce-en.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{clientearth2020article, author = {{ClientEarth}}, title = {{Is Article 113 of the Control Regulation compatible with the public’s right of access to environmental information and documents?}}, institution = {ClientEarth}, year = {2020}, month = oct, url = {https://www.clientearth.org/media/1honw0ky/eu-fisheries-control-regulation-article-113-legal-briefing-ce-en.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }