ClientEarth v European Commission reinforces transparency rules on mancozeb and cypermethrin decisions

ClientEarth v European Commission has clarified how EU transparency rules apply to pesticide decision-making. On 25 March 2026, the General Court partially annulled a European Commission decision that had refused access to documents concerning the active substances mancozeb and cypermethrin, including Member State positions within the PAFF Committee. The ruling is relevant for professionals across the chemicals value chain because it confirms that refusals under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 must be supported by specific and evidence-based reasoning.

EU transparency and access to documents

The case arose from a request by environmental NGO ClientEarth for documents linked to the approval, extension and non-renewal of mancozeb and cypermethrin. Mancozeb is a fungicide and cypermethrin an insecticide, both used in plant protection products. The Commission had refused broad access, citing the need to protect its decision-making process and internal deliberations. However, the General Court found that these refusals were not sufficiently justified for two categories of documents. It held that general claims about confidentiality, mutual trust between Member States and the Commission, or exposure to external pressure are not enough. Instead, institutions must demonstrate a reasonably foreseeable and specific risk to decision-making. The Court also confirmed that comitology rules, including standard procedural provisions, cannot in themselves override the right of public access to documents under EU law.

Mancozeb and cypermethrin regulatory implications

For regulatory and compliance teams, ClientEarth v European Commission reinforces that access to documents relating to active substance decisions may expand where the Commission cannot substantiate harm from disclosure. This includes records reflecting Member State positions during PAFF Committee deliberations. However, the judgment does not establish automatic disclosure. The Court upheld the Commission’s refusal for a separate set of documents where disclosure could undermine ongoing court proceedings. Importantly, this protection applies not only to documents created for litigation but also to those closely linked to pending cases where disclosure could affect equality of arms or the conduct of proceedings. As a result, companies should expect a more rigorous justification process from the Commission rather than a wholesale shift towards full transparency.

Implications for stakeholders across the value chain

Manufacturers, importers, downstream users and legal advisers should monitor how the Commission reassesses access requests following this ruling. Greater access to committee-level information may improve understanding of Member State positions and procedural dynamics in active substance reviews. At the same time, limits remain where competing legal interests apply, particularly in the context of litigation. Businesses should therefore continue to combine public document access with direct regulatory engagement and intelligence gathering. A practical step is to review internal monitoring systems for EU regulatory developments, ensuring teams can quickly interpret newly disclosed information where access is granted.