Corporate Europe Observatory

Exposing the power of corporate lobbying in the EU

  • Dansk
  • NL
  • EN
  • FI
  • FR
  • DE
  • EL
  • IT
  • NO
  • PL
  • PT
  • RO
  • SL
  • ES
  • SV

Commission sued for lack of transparency

Brussels, May 26, 2011 – The European Commission was sued today, accused of violating European transparency laws. Environmental law organisation ClientEarth, Friends of the Earth Europe (FoEE), FERN and Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) filed the lawsuit following the Commission’s refusal to provide access to information in decisions relating to the sustainability of Europe’s biofuels policy [1].

The case before the General Court of the EU seeks to annul the Commission’s decision to refuse public access to information about voluntary certification schemes used to ensure compliance with EU criteria on biofuel sustainability. In 2010 a request for information about organisations that had applied to operate the schemes, and how they are chosen, was rejected by the Commission. This was challenged in December, but despite a deadline of 4 February 2011, the Commission has
still not responded [2].

The Renewable Energy Directive sets a 10 per cent target for use of renewable energy in the transport sector - expected to be met by increased production of biofuels. Increased pressure on land driven by the surge in demand for biofuels is resulting in increased greenhouse gas emissions as well as threatening vulnerable communities and biodiversity. The sustainability criteria are intended to prevent the most severe environmental impacts by requiring biofuels to protect high carbon stock areas and biodiversity standards set out in the Directive – social impacts are ignored.

Compliance is monitored by accredited voluntary certification schemes. These are accredited by the Commission to gauge whether consignments of biofuels meet sustainability criteria set out in the Renewable Energy Directive. The EU is currently considering which of these schemes it will accredit, but the process has lacked transparency.

James Thornton, ClientEarth CEO, said: “The amount of money at stake over Europe’s biofuels policy is colossal, and so is the potential for environmental devastation. These policies are too important to shield from scrutiny, decision making processes need to be more participatory. We need to know which organisations have applied to run voluntary certification schemes, and how they’ve been chosen, so that we can be certain that they will provide robust and reliable information.”

Robbie Blake, Friends of the Earth Europe’s campaigner on biofuels, said: “The European Commission has continually evaded its legal responsibility to disclose even the most basic information about voluntary certification schemes for Europe’s biofuels. The stakes are high – ineffective certification schemes will give the green light to environmental abuse. We need transparency and participation in EU policy making – not secrecy and suspicion.”

Nina Holland, Corporate Europe Observatory, said: “Voluntary schemes, including the roundtables on palm oil and responsible soy, allow industry to greenwash damaging monoculture crops without taking account of the environmental or social costs. The Commission must lift the veil of secrecy or companies will continue to use these schemes to improve their image, without changing the way they operate.”



[1] An EU comitology committee on the sustainability of biofuels will meet on Friday 27 May to discuss a first series of 7 voluntary certification schemes. Information on the basis of which these schemes have been assessed is not publicly available. Nor is any information available on the other schemes that are still under assessment.

[2] ClientEarth launched two other law-suits against the EU Commission for lack of transparency over biofuels policy in 2010. For details read this press release:


For more information please contact:
George Leigh, ClientEarth, communications officer t. +44 (0) 203 030 5951 | m. +44 (0) 7538 418460 | e.

Robbie Blake, biofuels campaigner, Friends of the Earth Europe t. +32 2893 1017,

Nina Holland, Corporate Europe Observatory,

Related issues: 

Monsanto and the pesticide industry breathed a collective sigh of relief on 12 November 2015. The findings of an investigation into the toxicity of glyphosate by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and EU Member States were in stark contradiction to the March 2015 conclusion by the International Agency for Research against Cancer (IARC), a body of the World Health Organization (WHO), that this agricultural herbicide was probably causing cancer to humans. If validated, this conclusion could cause a partial ban of glyphosate in the EU.

In closing her investigation into DG AGRI's 'Expert Groups', the European Ombudsman has called for more transparency as well as structural measures to ensure groups are more balanced.
An often asked question is whether TTIP will weaken Europe's rules over genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Meanwhile, the biotech industry is pushing for the products of the 'next generation' biotech crops to escape the EU's legislation on GMOs and therefore to go unregulated. Is there a link between this new push, and TTIP? Emails obtained via a Freedom of Information request show this might indeed be the case.
Crispr/Cas9, oligodirected mutagenesis, zinc finger nuclease… Those names are a few of a longer list of new techniques of biotechnologies (NTB) for which the European Union is still to decide whether their products are falling under the scope of the EU GMO legislation or not. After having consulted with scientists experts, legal services and some member states, the European Commission has promised it will release a document before the end of 2015. If any were expecting this document to be discussed with the European Parliament and all the Member states, they had it wrong as the European Commission will not contact them, contrarily to what was announced in the first place... In january, an open letter from associations and unions to the European Commission stated that all the new techniques of biotechnology should be considered as giving rise to GMOs falling under the scope of the EU legislation.

Big corporations are taking a strong interest in this years Climate Negotiations in Paris - COP21. But what lies behind the glossy publications and impressive business events ?

An overview of CEO's activities in Paris

A new guide to lobbying and greenwashing around the UN climate talks

'Lobby Planet Paris'' maps the big corporations, lobby groups and trade associations that are trying hard to capture the climate talks

Capturing COP21 - Corporate influence and the UN climate summit in Paris

The corporate lobby tour

Stop the Crop

Alternative Trade Mandate