knowledge 6 May 2026 |

No Right to Anonymity: CJEU Upholds Identification Requirements for Environmental Information Requests

The High Court had asked the CJEU to consider whether Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information (the “Directive”) granted requesters a right to anonymity when making a request. The Directive was transposed into Irish law by the European Communities (Access to Information on the Environment) Regulations 2007-2018 (the “Irish Regulations”). Article 6(1)(c) of the Irish Regulations provides that a request for environmental information (an “AIE request”) must state the name, address and any other relevant contact details of the applicant.

In its judgment of 15 January, the CJEU held that while the Directive does not require applicants to provide identifying information, Member States can require this information from applicants provided that the national rules are not less favourable than those governing similar situations subject to domestic law (the principle of equivalence) or make it impossible in practice or excessively difficult to exercise rights conferred by EU law (the principle of effectiveness).

The CJEU found that the Irish Regulations conformed with the Directive, and public authorities as defined under the Directive and Irish Regulations, may be entitled to reject an application if the applicant does not provide identifying information in the request for environmental information.

Background

Between March and June 2022, Coillte received 97 AIE requests from applicants using fictional names such as “Willy Wonka”. When those applicants failed to provide a current address and legal name, Coillte rejected the requests as incomplete. The applicants requested an internal review of those rejection decisions, the result of which was to again refuse the requests.

The applicants appealed 81 requests to the Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (the “Commissioner”). The Commissioner concluded that Coillte was not justified in treating the requests as invalid under the Irish Regulations. The Commissioner found that article 6(1)(c) of the Irish Regulations, which requires a request to “state the name, address and any other relevant contact details of the applicant”, must be interpreted in light of the Directive’s purpose of ensuring wide access to environmental information. Accordingly, the Commissioner found that the provision should not be interpreted as requiring proof of legal identity or a postal address, but rather as ensuring that public authorities have sufficient contact details to communicate with applicants and respond to their requests.

Coillte appealed the decision of the Commissioner to the High Court under Article 13(1) of the Irish Regulations.

High Court Request for Preliminary Ruling

In his judgment of 24 January 2024, Mr Justice Humphreys considered that the anonymised requests likely originated from a single source or a coordinated campaign, and that anonymity could be abused to disrupt public authorities’ operations.

The High Court noted that the 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 the Directive and the UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters 1998 (the “Aarhus Convention”).

The High Court referred questions to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling seeking to ascertain, in essence, whether the concept of “applicant”, within the meaning of Article 2(5) of the Directive, read in the light of the Aarhus Convention, must be interpreted as meaning that it requires a natural or legal person to be identified by his or her actual name and/or a current physical address and, if not, whether it precludes national legislation which requires identification.  

CJEU Decision

The CJEU found that under Article 2(5) of the Directive, read in light of the Aarhus Convention, the concept of “applicant” does not require a natural or legal person to be identified by their actual name or physical address. However, Member States may impose such requirements through national legislation, provided the legislation complies with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness.

The CJEU emphasised that the Directive does not require public authorities to provide environmental information to any entity other than a natural or legal person, nor does it require them to respond to a significant number of identical requests made by the same person within a very short period. Such requests were noted to be “liable to affect the effectiveness of access to environmental information of other natural or legal persons, given that public authorities do not have unlimited resources.”

The Irish Regulations, which require an applicant to provide their name, address, and other relevant contact details, were held not to render it impossible or excessively difficult to exercise the right of access to environmental information. The CJEU emphasised, however, that any national rule must not impose excessive difficulty and that while identification requirements may be permissible, they cannot be used to exclude legitimate requesters.

Conclusion

The CJEU decision provides helpful clarity on the obligations of public authorities and the permissible scope of domestic legislation in implementing the Directive.

The decision confirms that while EU law does not require applicants to provide identifying information, Member States may impose such requirements through national legislation, provided it complies with EU principles of equivalence and effectiveness. This strengthens the position of public authorities facing coordinated or voluminous anonymous requests.

More broadly, the CJEU’s decision confirms that Member States enjoy considerable discretion to establish procedural requirements that ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of a regime prescribed by a Directive, provided such rules comply with EU principles of equivalence and effectiveness.

The High Court judgment requesting a preliminary ruling can be found here, and the CJEU judgment (Case C-129/24) here.