Ongoing action
CADA procedure
Obtaining the disclosure of the EY/Arcadis/Ceresco study report on Europa Valley, funded with EUR 260,000 of public money and kept secret since February 2023.
October 24, 2026 — the administrative court is seized
As the documents had not been released despite the favourable CADA opinion, the association has filed an application with the Strasbourg Administrative Court (5th chamber, case no. 2609654, WVN v. ADIRA). Receipt acknowledged on October 26: the case is under examination. See details
August 10, 2026 — the CADA rules in our favour
France's freedom-of-information commission has issued a favourable opinion on our request (opinion no. 202605018). ADIRA must now release the documents. Read the opinion (PDF, in French)
What we're requesting
Three documents funded entirely with public money.
The final report
The study entitled "Responsible and sustainable economic and tourism development in Central Alsace", carried out by consultancies EY (Ernst & Young), Arcadis and Ceresco. Finalized in February 2023.
Interim deliverables and appendices
All documents produced during the study: phase reports, sectoral analyses, raw data, maps.
The terms of reference
The corresponding tender, reference 2020-10-PCN, submission deadline: November 23, 2020. Contract signed on April 21, 2021.
Targeted recipients
| Recipient | Role | Funding |
|---|---|---|
| ADIRA (Vincent Froehlicher) | Study lead | — |
| CEA (Frederic Bierry) | Funder | €100,000 |
| Grand Est Region | Funder | €100,000 |
| Regional Prefect | Funder (State) | €50,000 |
| CC canton d'Erstein (Stephane Schaal) | Co-commissioner | €10,000 |
The first registered letter was sent to ADIRA, the study lead. In case of refusal or silence, the co-funding authorities will also be contacted — they are unquestionably subject to freedom of information law.
Why it's secret
A report funded 100% by public money, kept under wraps for 3 years.
100% public funding
EUR 260,000 of public funds: Grand Est Region (EUR 100,000), CEA (EUR 100,000), State (EUR 50,000), inter-municipal bodies (EUR 10,000). Not a single cent of private investment.
ADIRA's refusal
ADIRA, the development agency led by former CEA president Frederic Bierry, has never published the report. No official communication to citizens or opposition elected officials.
Press revelations
It was Rue89 Strasbourg that revealed the existence of this report in May 2025, showing that its conclusions were far less favorable to the project than what had been presented to elected officials.
Legal basis
Two complementary grounds — environmental law is the decisive argument.
1 General law — CRPA
- Art. L300-2: "studies" and "reports" are administrative documents subject to disclosure
- Art. L311-1: obligation to disclose to any person who requests it
- Art. R311-13: 1 month of silence = tacit refusal
- Art. L342-1: the CADA referral is a mandatory prerequisite before court action
Limitation: the administration could invoke the "preparatory nature" of the document (art. L311-2). But the study has been completed for 3 years and the decision (SCoT) has been taken.
2 Environmental Code
- Art. L124-1: right of access to environmental information (Aarhus Convention)
- Art. L124-2: broad definition including "economic analyses" related to environmental measures
- Art. 7 Environmental Charter: constitutional right of access to environmental information
Decisive argument
In matters of environmental information, the preparatory nature of a document cannot be invoked to refuse disclosure. The CADA automatically applies the Environmental Code regime when it is more favorable, even if the requester does not invoke it. The study concerns territorial development on the immediate edge of the Natura 2000 SAC "Rhin-Ried-Bruch" (FR4201797), a Ramsar site and the habitat of the Greater Alsatian Hamster — it therefore contains environmental information within the meaning of article L124-2.
What about trade secrets?
The administration could attempt to invoke trade secrets (art. L311-6 CRPA). But this argument is very weak: the study was funded exclusively with public money, the commissioner is ADIRA (a public body), and the general conclusions have already been revealed by the press.
That is exactly how the CADA ruled on August 10, 2026: commercial secrecy only justifies redacting the detailed financial documents of the bids — not the content of the study. See the caveats in detail
Procedure timeline
From sending the letters to seizing the administrative court.
Registered letter to ADIRA
March 2, 2026Registered letter with acknowledgment of receipt sent to the Director General of ADIRA, the study lead.
Tacit refusal by ADIRA
April 2026ADIRA's silence beyond the 1-month deadline = tacit refusal (art. R311-13 CRPA).
CADA referral
April 9, 2026Referral registered with the CADA secretariat — case no. 202605018, filed by Wittisheim Vies et Nature.
CADA acknowledgment of receipt
May 27, 2026Official acknowledgment signed by Secretary General Hélène SERVENT — review of the case underway.
Explicit refusal by ADIRA
July 2, 2026After our referral, ADIRA confirmed its refusal in writing, arguing that intellectual property in the study belongs solely to the funders (State, Region, CeA, communities of communes) and not to it.
Additional observations to the CADA
July 2026We reply point by point: the right of access covers the documents held by the administration (ADIRA ran the procurement), regardless of ownership; an administration that does not hold a requested document must forward the request to the holder (art. L311-2 CRPA); and the study, already partly public, is covered by no secret.
Favourable CADA opinion
August 10, 2026The commission issues a favourable opinion on our request (opinion no. 202605018, signed by its president Bruno LASSERRE). Once signed, public procurement contracts and their related documents are disclosable, subject only to redacting the detailed financial elements of the bids.
Follow-ups and formal notice
Aug.–Oct. 2026After the opinion, we follow up with ADIRA by email (exchanges of July 24 and August 10, 2026), then send it a formal notice by registered letter on October 2, 2026 (received October 7), with a copy sent to the CADA.
Application to the administrative court
October 24, 2026As the documents had not been released, Wittisheim Vies et Nature files an application with the Strasbourg Administrative Court challenging ADIRA's refusal to disclose the final report, the interim deliverables and annexes, and the study's specifications. Filed via Télérecours with 11 exhibits.
Examination by the 5th chamber
OngoingThe court acknowledged receipt of the application on October 26, 2026 (case no. 2609654). The case is under examination. After a favourable CADA opinion, a continued refusal is hard to defend: the judge can annul the refusal and order disclosure, if necessary under penalty.
Current status
We obtained a first extract of the report (43 slides from phase 3). The conclusions are damning for the project. Read our analysis
The Commission d'accès aux documents administratifs issued its opinion no. 202605018: "the commission issues a favourable opinion on the request". It is signed by the CADA's president, Bruno LASSERRE, and was served simultaneously on the association and on ADIRA.
The commission restates the principle: once signed, public procurement contracts and their related documents are administrative documents disclosable under Book III of the CRPA to anyone who requests them. It relies on the Conseil d'État decision of March 30, 2016, Centre hospitalier de Perpignan (no. 375529), under which all the documents of a public contract are in principle disclosable.
The intellectual-property argument raised by ADIRA on July 2, 2026 was not accepted.
The caveats attached to the opinion
The opinion is favourable "subject to the caveats set out". Before disclosure, the administration must redact, on grounds of industrial and commercial secrecy (art. L311-6 CRPA):
- the winning bidder's detailed pricing — unit price schedule, breakdown of the lump-sum price, estimated quantities. The overall price remains disclosable;
- for unsuccessful bidders: the technical and financial detail of their bid (their overall price is disclosable);
- references to technical and human resources, certifications, turnover, bank details and references other than public contracts;
- the scores and rankings of unsuccessful bidders — those of the winning bidder are freely disclosable.
Key point: none of these caveats bears on the content of the study report itself. They cover only the financial documents of the procurement. The EY/Arcadis/Ceresco report, the interim deliverables and the tender specifications — the heart of our request — are disclosable.
A CADA opinion is advisory: it does not legally bind ADIRA. As the documents had not been released despite our follow-ups and a formal notice (registered letter of October 2, 2026), Wittisheim Vies et Nature filed an application with the Strasbourg Administrative Court on October 24, 2026 to challenge this refusal.
The court acknowledged receipt on October 26. The case — no. 2609654, WVN v. ADIRA, 5th chamber — is under examination.
Maintaining a refusal after a favourable CADA opinion is very hard to defend before the judge, who can annul the refusal and order disclosure, if necessary under penalty. We will publish the next steps here.
Sources
Legislation
CADA
Transparency is a right
EUR 260,000 of public money. 3 years of secrecy. A simple, free procedure available to any citizen.