It is not reasonably foreseeable that a confidential exchange of arguments between the Commission and the Member State will always promote a solution to an infringement more than would a transparent discussion of the various legal viewpoints and interests at stake. On the contrary, one can imagine infringement procedures where public disclosure of the different opinions and arguments exchanged, exactly because of the robust involvement of public opinion and civil society, both national and European, could actually favour or facilitate an end to the infringement. One can even reasonably suppose that public disclosure of documents in infringement procedures where environmental issues are at stake would likely be one of those situations. It is indeed plausible that, with an eye to bringing the member state legislation in line with EU law, involvement of civil society and public opinion would be highly favourable. The general and blanket assertion that public disclosure of documents exchanged in infringement procedures will always harm the purpose of that procedure (which is the protected interest in Art 4(2) third indent) appears to be too general in nature and can therefore be understood as merely hypothetical.