EU Court to Decide Whether Romania Can Withhold Environmental Documents on the Rovina Mining Project

June 19 — The Cluj Court of Appeal granted the request filed by Declic Association, part of the Mining Watch Romania network, and referred three preliminary questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning the public’s right to know what documentation underpinned the designation of the Rovina mining project as “strategic.” The CJEU’s ruling will set a binding precedent for all EU member states.

In brief

• The Cluj Court of Appeal referred the case to the CJEU under docket no. 1634/117/2025, activating the preliminary ruling mechanism (Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — TFEU).
• The dispute began when Romania’s Ministry of Economy (MEDAT) refused to disclose environmental studies on the Rovina mining project.
• Authorities invoked Article 46 of the Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA — Regulation (EU) 2024/1252) to automatically classify the entire procedure as confidential.
• The CJEU must clarify whether this automatic confidentiality is compatible with the Aarhus Convention and with EU primary law.
• What’s next: proceedings at the Cluj Court of Appeal remain suspended until the CJEU in Luxembourg issues its ruling.

What happened

The Cluj Court of Appeal granted the request filed by Declic Association, part of the Mining Watch Romania network, and ordered a referral to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the case concerning access to the information that underpinned the designation of the Rovina mining project as “strategic” at European level.

The court activated the preliminary ruling mechanism under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), suspending the proceedings until the judges in Luxembourg rule on the validity of Article 46 of the Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA) — the legal provision that Romania’s Ministry of Economy (MEDAT) invoked to refuse access to the environmental documents.

The dispute originated from the authorities’ refusal to disclose documentation such as environmental impact studies or pollution-prevention and extractive-waste management plans for the Rovina mining project. State institutions invoked the CRMA to block public access to information, arguing that the entire procedure for designating a project as “strategic” is automatically confidential.

The three questions referred by the Cluj Court of Appeal to the CJEU

Under EU law, the Cluj Court of Appeal is asking the Court in Luxembourg to clarify three fundamental legal issues:

1. Scope of confidentiality — whether Article 46 of Regulation 2024/1252 (CRMA) establishes a general and automatic exclusion of all information related to a strategic project from public access, or whether it is strictly limited to protecting genuinely confidential data (such as trade secrets demonstrated on a case-by-case basis).
2. Validity of the CRMA against the Aarhus Convention — whether Article 46 of the regulation is invalid to the extent that it allows environmental information to be withheld, in breach of the EU’s obligations under the Aarhus Convention and Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006.
3. Incompatibility with EU primary law — whether imposing a regime of absolute confidentiality on environmental procedures conflicts with the principles of democracy and transparency (Articles 1 and 10 of the Treaty on European Union — TEU, Article 15 TFEU), the precautionary principle and environmental protection (Article 191 TFEU), and the fundamental right to an effective remedy.

Declic’s position

“With this decision, the judges in Romania confirm our arguments: securing the supply of minerals cannot be achieved by burying democracy and the right to a clean environment. A mining project of the scale of Rovina, with potentially irreversible environmental effects, cannot be hidden from the eyes of local communities. We trust that the truth about the disaster enabled by the authorities at Rovina will officially come to light as well. Consistent CJEU case law requires authorities to prioritize transparency whenever the information requested concerns pollution affecting local communities and nature,” said Roxana Pencea-Brădățan, campaigns coordinator at Declic Association.

The bigger picture: the same secrecy at the European Commission

The information blackout at Rovina is not an isolated case — it reflects a widespread abusive practice at EU institutional level as well. Hundreds of civil society organizations from more than 9 member states — representing millions of citizens directly affected by extractive projects — have formally petitioned the European Parliament regarding the conduct of the Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (DG GROW).

Although EU law guarantees broad access to documents, DG GROW has systematically rejected transparency requests concerning mining projects designated as “strategic.” Citing “business-sensitive” commercial exceptions, the European Commission has refused to publish the full applications submitted by mining companies and their evaluation methodologies, offering the public only truncated summaries.

European civil society considers this practice unlawful for three reasons:

• Public money is at stake — “strategic project” status under the CRMA allows private operators to access massive public funds (the European Regional Development Fund, the Cohesion Fund, EIB and EBRD assistance), and the public interest in how this money is spent outweighs any commercial secret.
• Environmental assessments are being hidden — civil society’s requests target mandatory social and environmental assessments, including data on greenhouse gas emissions and other toxic substances released into the environment; under CJEU case law, emissions data can never be withheld on grounds of commercial confidentiality.
• Risk of democratic backsliding — withholding information of public interest to favor the extractive sector blocks citizens’ right to be informed.

“This practice is entirely unlawful: DG GROW is abusively invoking commercial exceptions to hide from citizens how public money is spent and what the real environmental effects are. This is institutional secrecy that undermines the right to information of millions of European citizens,” said Roxana Pencea-Brădățan, campaigns coordinator at Declic Association.

Why the CRMA is under fire across Europe

The legal victory in Cluj comes amid a wave of criticism directed at the Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA) by broad coalitions of European civil society:

• “Fast-tracking” approval procedures — European organizations warn that aggressively shortened permitting timelines sacrifice ecological and social impact assessments for the sake of economic speed.
• A severe transparency deficit — civil society platforms argue that labeling projects “strategic” creates a culture of institutional secrecy and blocks local communities’ informed consent.
• Outsourcing ecological risks — legal and environmental experts accuse the regulation of forcing the reopening of mining sites near protected areas (including Natura 2000 sites), calling the law “economic efficiency paid for directly with the price of our rights and of nature.”
• Weak recognition of independent standards — the CRMA has been criticized for its reliance on corporate audits and private certification schemes, which offer no real guarantees regarding a project’s sustainability.

What’s next

The proceedings on the merits at the Cluj Court of Appeal (docket no. 1634/117/2025) remain suspended until the Court of Justice of the European Union rules on the three preliminary questions. The CJEU’s decision will take effect across the entire European Union and will set a binding precedent for all member states regarding access to the documentation underlying the designation of projects as “strategic.”

Mining Watch Romania, together with its national and international partners — including the Association for the Protection of the Apuseni Mountains-Rovina and the EcouRovinaBucuresti Association — will continue to monitor the progress of this case before the CJEU.

Frequently asked questions

What is the CJEU? The Court of Justice of the European Union, the Luxembourg-based court that interprets EU law and whose rulings are binding on all member states.

What is the CRMA? The Critical Raw Materials Act, Regulation (EU) 2024/1252, which governs the EU’s access to essential raw materials and introduces a special regime for projects designated as “strategic.”

What is DG GROW? The Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs within the European Commission, the institution accused by civil society organizations of blocking access to documents on strategic mining projects.

Why does this case matter for citizens outside Romania? Because the CJEU’s ruling will not apply only to the Rovina case — it will set a binding precedent for all EU member states on the public’s right to access documentation for projects designated as “strategic.”

Who brought the case? Declic Association, as part of the Mining Watch Romania network.

Note: (1) Case no. 1634/117/2025.