Pierre Housieaux v Délégués du conseil de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale.

• Jurisdiction: European Union
• Celex Number: 62004CJ0186
• ECLI: ECLI:EU:C:2005:248
• Docket Number: C-186/04
• Court: Court of Justice (European Union)
• Procedure Type: Reference for a preliminary ruling
• Date: 21 April 2005

Case C-186/04

Pierre Housieaux

v

Délégués du conseil de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Counseil d’État (Belgium))

(Directive 90/313/EEC – Freedom of access to information on the environment – Request for information – Requirement to give reasons in the event of refusal – Mandatory time-limit – Failure of a public authority to respond within the time-limit for reply – Implied refusal – Fundamental right to effective judicial protection)

Opinion of Advocate General Kokott delivered on 27 January 2005

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 21 April 2005.

Summary of the Judgment

1. Environment — Freedom of access to information — Directive 90/313 — Request for information — Two-month time-limit for a reply imposed on the public authority — Mandatory

(Council Directive 90/313, Art. 3(4))

2. Environment — Freedom of access to information — Directive 90/313 — Implied decision to refuse a request for information — No reasons given at the end of the two-month period for response — Unlawfulness of the decision

(Council Directive 90/313, Art. 3(4) and 4)

3. Environment — Freedom of access to information — Directive 90/313 — Judicial protection — Decision which may be open to review — Implied refusal of a request for information

(Council Directive 90/313, Art. 4)

1. The two-month time-limit within which the public authority must reply to the request for access to information laid down in Article 3(4) of Directive 90/313 on the freedom of access to information on the environment is mandatory.

(see para. 29, operative part 1)

2. Article 3(4) of Directive 90/313 on the freedom of access to information on the environment, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof, does not preclude national legislation according to which, for the purposes of granting effective judicial protection, the failure of a public authority to respond within a period of two months is deemed to give rise to an implied refusal which may be the subject of a judicial or administrative review in accordance with the national legal system. However, by virtue of Article 3(4) it is unlawful for such a decision not to be accompanied by reasons when the two-month time-limit expires. In those circumstances, the implied refusal must be regarded as unlawful.

(see para. 36, operative part 3)

3. The decision referred to in Article 4 of Directive 90/313 on the freedom of access to information on the environment, against which a judicial or administrative review may be sought by the person who made the request for information, is the implied refusal which arises from the failure by the public authority competent to decide on that request to respond within two months.

(see para. 39, operative part 2)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber)

21 April 2005 (*)

(Directive 90/313/EEC – Freedom of access to information on the environment – Request for information – Requirement to give reasons in the event of refusal – Mandatory time-limit – Failure of a public authority to respond within the time-limit for reply – Implied refusal – Fundamental right to effective judicial protection)

In Case C-186/04,

Reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Conseil d’État (Belgium), made by decision of 1 April 2004, received at the Court on 22 April 2004, in the proceedings

Pierre Housieaux

v

Délégués du conseil de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale,

interested parties:

Société de développement régional de Bruxelles (SDRB),

Batipont Immobilier SA (BPI),

Immomills Louis de Waele Development SA (ILDWD),

THE COURT (Second Chamber),

composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta, P. Kūris, G. Arestis and J. Klučka (Rapporteur), Judges,

Advocate General: J. Kokott,

Registrar: R. Grass,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 20 January 2005,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

– Pierre Housieaux, by J. Sambon and P. Reyniers, avocats,

– Délégués du conseil de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale, by P. Coenraets and C. Lepinois, avocats,

– Société de développement régional de Bruxelles (SDRB), by F. Krenc and P. Lambert, avocats,

– the Commission of the European Communities, by U. Wölker and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 27 January 2005,

gives the following

Judgment

1 This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Articles 3(4) and 4 of Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the freedom of access to information on the environment (OJ 1990 L 158, p. 56).

2 This reference was made in the context of a dispute between Mr Housieaux and the Collège des délégués du conseil de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale (Board of Delegates of the Council of the Brussels Capital Region) (hereinafter ‘the Board’) in relation to a decision by the Board on access to documents relating to an urban development contract.

Legal framework

Community legislation

3 Article 3(1) of Directive 90/313 provides:

‘Save as provided in this Article, Member States shall ensure that public authorities are required to make available information relating to the environment to any natural or legal person at his request and without his having to prove an interest.

Member States shall define the practical arrangements under which such information is effectively made available.’

4 Article 3(2) and (3) of the same directive lists the reasons which may justify the refusal of a request for information.

5 Article 3(4) of the said directive is worded as follows:

‘A public authority shall respond to a person requesting information as soon as possible and at the latest within two months. The reasons for a refusal to provide the information requested must be given.’

6 Article 4 of Directive 90/313 provides:

‘A person who considers that his request for information has been unreasonably refused or ignored, or has been inadequately answered by a public authority, may seek a judicial or administrative review of the decision in accordance with the...