Charges for Requests to Public Bodies for Environmental Information

The High Court has asked the Court of Justice of the European Union to rule on whether public bodies can charge for staff time when supplying environmental information. Our Public, Regulatory & Investigations team explores how an awaited ruling could reshape fees under the Access to Information on the Environment Regulations, clarify EU obligations, and strengthen transparency across Europe.

What you need to know

• Save Leitrim Environmental and Biodiversity CLG challenged Coillte’s €15 fee for supplying environmental information.
• The fee covered staff time for search and retrieval, which Save Leitrim argued was unlawful under EU law and the Aarhus Convention.
• The High Court considered whether the fee complied with the Access to Information on the Environment (AIE) Regulations, Directive 2003/4/EC on public access to environmental information, and the principle of equivalence when compared with the Freedom of Information (FOI) regime.
• The High Court[1] referred key questions on whether staff time could be charged and whether there was an equivalence with the FOI regime to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).
• The CJEU’s ruling is awaited and could reshape fee practices across the EU, clarifying the balance between cost recovery and public access rights.

In Save Leitrim Environmental and Biodiversity CLG v Commissioner for Environmental Information, Save Leitrim sought access to correspondence held by Coillte relating to certification audits. Coillte initially charged €30 for search and retrieval time, later reducing this to €15 when part of the material was found to be already in the public domain. Save Leitrim challenged the fee before Ireland’s Commissioner for Environmental Information. They contended that these “indirect” costs were unlawful under EU law and the Aarhus Convention. The Commissioner upheld the reduced fee and Save Leitrim appealed to the High Court.

Background

The High Court considered whether charging €15 for search and retrieval complied with EU law and whether the principle of equivalence applied. This principle requires that EU‑based rights be enforced under national procedures no less favourably than comparable domestic rights.

Save Leitrim argued that Ireland’s FOI Act operates as an equivalent access regime to the AIE Regulations. On that basis, it contended that the same charging approach should apply. In particular, as the FOI regime does not impose fees for search and retrieval costs up to €101, Save Leitrim maintained that no equivalent charge should arise under the AIE Regulations. Coillte argued that the principle of equivalence did not apply here contending that:

• The FOI and AIE fee systems were different in nature
• This point had not been raised earlier and so could not be introduced for the first time on appeal, and
• The principle of equivalence only came into play where EU law left it to Member States to provide remedies for breaches of directly effective rights

Save Leitrim also argued that Article 4(8) of the Aarhus Convention prohibited charging “indirect” costs for the supply of environmental information, such as staff time. The Commissioner and Coillte argued that they were obliged to follow the judgments of the CJEU. They maintained that Article 4(8) of the Aarhus Convention does not have direct effect. Nor, they argued, does it expressly prohibit the recovery of indirect costs when supplying environmental information.

Mr Justice Humphreys held that it was appropriate for the High Court to make a reference to the CJEU. The question was whether the principle of equivalence precluded the charging of a fee. In particular, the Court sought clarification by comparing Regulation 15(1) of the AIE Regulations with Article 5(2) of Directive 2003/4/EC and the FOI Act. The High Court also referred the question of whether Article 5(2) of Directive 2003/4 and/or Article 4(8) of the Aarhus Convention could mean that charges for providing environmental information could not include the costs of staff time spent responding to individual requests.

Potential Implications

The CJEU’s answers will be significant:

• If the Court rules that indirect costs are prohibited, public authorities across the EU may no longer be able to charge for search and retrieval time, limiting fees to material costs only, e.g. copying or postage
• If the Court finds that the principle of equivalence requires closer alignment with FOI procedures, Ireland may need to adjust its fee regime under the AIE Regulations
• More broadly, the decision will clarify the balance between national discretion and EU obligations in access‑to‑information law, shaping how environmental transparency is delivered in practice

Comment

This case highlights the tension between national fee practices and the EU’s commitment to ensuring broad public access to environmental information. By referring key questions to the CJEU, the High Court has placed the issue of charging for staff time and the application of the principle of equivalence squarely before Europe’s highest court. The outcome will determine not only whether the €15 fee charged by Coillte was lawful but also set a precedent for how environmental information requests are handled across the EU. In practical terms, the awaited CJEU decision will shape the balance between administrative cost recovery and the public’s right to transparency. There could be significant implications for public authorities, environmental groups, and citizens seeking to participate in environmental decision-making, or to hold decision‑makers to account.

Contact our Public, Regulatory & Investigations team

The content of this article is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute legal or other advice.

[1] Save Leitrim Environmental and Biodiversity Company Limited by Guarantee v Commissioner for Environmental Information [2025] IEHC 556