155In support of his second plea, the applicant puts forward four parts. First, he claims that the EMA misinterpreted the applicant’s arguments seeking to demonstrate the existence of an overriding public interest. Second, the EMA applied an incorrect criterion to assess the existence of an overriding public interest. Third, the EMA breached the principle of maximum transparency applicable to medical countermeasures. Fourth, the EMA failed to take into account the case-law of the Court of Justice on the public interest of laboratory data in the context of environmental protection, nor the provisions of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (OJ 1994 L 336, p. 214; ‘the TRIPS Agreement’), which forms part of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) agreements, signed by representatives of the European Community and approved subsequently by Council Decision 94/800/EC (of 22 December 1994) concerning the conclusion on behalf of the European Community, as regards matters within its competence, of the agreements reached in the Uruguay Round multilateral negotiations (1986-1994) (OJ 1994 L 336, p. 1).