EN
ReportsofCases
ECLI:EU:F:2011 :3 1JUDGMENT O F THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
(Second Ch amber)
20 January 2011
Case F-121/07
Guido St rack
v
European Comm ission
(Civil service — Officials — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049 /2001 — Jurisdiction o f 
the Civil Service Tribunal — Admissibility — Acts adversely affecting an official)
Application:brought u nder Articles 236 E C and 152 E A by which M r Strack seeks annulment of the 
decisions of the European Commission o f 12 January, 26 February and 20 July 2007 t o 
the extent th at th ey refuse him a ccess to certain documents in th e C ommission’s 
possession a nd an order that the Commission p ay da mages of at least EUR 10 000 w ith 
interest to make good the harm suffered as a r esult of that refusal of access.
Held: The action is dismissed. Each party is to bear its own costs.
Summ ary
1. Procedure — Lodging of defence — Time-limit — Extension
(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 39(2))
2. Procedure — Oral procedure — Report for the Hearing drawn up by the Judge-Rapporteur — Purpose
3. European U nion — Institutions — Right of public a ccess t o d ocuments — Regulation 
No 1049 /2001 — Rule of a ge neral nature — Request by an official for access t o his personal and 
medical files — Subject to the Staff Regulations of Officials
(Staff Regulations, Art. 26, seventh and eight paras, and 26a; Eu ropean Parliament and C ouncil 
Regulation No 1049 /2001 )
4. Officials — Actions — Jurisdiction of the Civil Service Tribunal — Action against a de cision refusing 
an application for access t o documents m ade b y an official under Regulation N o 1049 /2001 — 
Whether included
(Arts 230 EC and 236 EC; S tatute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 1; European Parliament and 
Council Regulation No 1049 /2001 , Art. 8(1); Council Decision 2004 /752, Art. 1)
5. European U nion — Institutions — Right of public a ccess t o d ocuments — Regulation 
No 1049 /2001 — Decision refusing public access t o documents —Definition
(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049 /200, Art. 6(2))
2 ECLI:EU:F:2011 :3SUMM ARY—CASEF-121/07
STRACKvCOMM ISSION
6. European U nion — Institutions — Right of public a ccess t o d ocuments — Regulation 
No 1049 /2001 — Obligation to formulate an application for access in a s ufficiently precise m anner
(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049 /2001 , Art. 6(1) and (2))
1. Article 39(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal allows its President to grant an 
extension o f the time-limit laid d own for the defendant to lodge a d efence. In that regard, the fact that 
several extensions have b een granted in th e absence of ad versarial argument does no t breach th e 
applicant’s right to fair legal process if the position o f the parties has no t been substantially changed. 
The fairness of a p rocedure has to be assessed in the light of that position taken as a w hole.
(see para. 39)
2. As its title suggests, the preparatory report for the hearing by the Judge-Rapporteur of the European 
Union is intended to prepare for the hearing and to allow th e parties to submit any observations on th e 
facts of the dispute and the questions rai sed in that report with a v iew to the dra fting of the judgment. 
Thus, the amendment of that document as such has no i mplications for the progress of the judicial 
proceedings and th e content of the judgment, and th e criticisms made of it by th e parties can be 
taken into account in the preparation o f the judgment only if they are relevant.
(see para. 42)
3. The access o f officials to th eir pe rsonal file and th e access o f officials to th eir me dical file ar e 
regulated by the seventh and eighth p aragraphs of Article 26 and by Article 26a of the Staff Regulations 
respectively, and th e possibility of officials’ having access to any other da ta concerning th em i s 
governed by Regulation N o 1049 /2001 o f the European Parliament and of the Council regarding 
public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission d ocuments.
Although Regulation N o 1049 /2001 i s a r ule of a g eneral nature which determines th e general 
principles governing th e right o f any citizen of th e U nion t o access to th e documents of th e 
institutions concerned in all the spheres of activity of the Union, including that of the civil service, the 
right o f access th us provided for may be limited or precluded — on th e principle that a s pecial rule 
derogates from th e general rule (lex specialis de rogat legi generali) — w here th ere are special rules 
governing specific matters.
In that regard, the seventh and eighth p aragraphs of Article 26 a nd Article 26a of the Staff Regulations 
constitute special provisions which derogate from th ose of Regulation N o 1049 /2001 a s they govern 
access t o specific types of documents, on e type r elating to th e ad ministrative p osition, th e 
responsibilities, the pe rformance and th e conduct of officials and th e other type b eing of a me dical 
nature.
(see paras 65-67)
See:
5 April 2005 , T-376/03 H endrickx v C ouncil, para. 55; 14 July 2005 , T-371/03 L e Voci v C ouncil, para. 122 ; 17 May 
2006 , T-93/04 K allianos v C omm ission, para. 87
13 January 2010 , F-124/05 a nd F-96/06 A and G v C omm ission, para. 294
4. It follows from A rticle 1 of Annex I to th e Statute of the Court of Justice that the Civil Service 
Tribunal has jurisdiction t o hear any dispute between an official and his institution ari sing from th e 
emp loyment relationship between th em, whatever provisions the official relies on i n support of his 
action. That assertion is borne out by Article 1 of Decision 2004 /752 e stablishing the European Union 
Civil Service Tribunal.
ECLI:EU:F:2011 :3 3SUMM ARY—CASEF-121/07
STRACKvCOMM ISSION
Consequently, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to rule on a n action for annulment brought on th e basis of 
Article 236 E C against a r efusal by the Commission to grant a r equest for access to documents made 
by an official or staff mem ber under Regulation N o 1049 /2001 o f the European Parliament and of the 
Council regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission d ocuments ari sing 
from th e emp loyment relationship between th at official or staff mem ber and th e Commission. That 
assertion c annot be affected by the fact that Article 8(1) of that regulation p rovides on ly for the action 
for annulment established by Article 230 E C. T he fact that the legislature intended, by that regulation, 
to give as wide an effect as possible to the right of the general public to access to documents held by 
the institutions explains why the legislature envisaged th e most common me ans of redress, without 
the reference to Article 230 E C having the effect of limiting th e me ans of redress open to th e legal 
person t o th e action f or annulment provided for by that article and th ereby restricting the extent of 
the jurisdiction c onferred on th e Tribunal by Article 1 of Annex I to th e Statute of the Court of 
Justice.
(see paras 71-74)
See:
19 January 2010 , T-355/04 a nd T-446/04 C o-Frutta v C omm ission, para. 71
5. A request made by the appointing authority, under Article 6(2) of Regulation N o 1049 /2001 o f the 
European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and 
Commission d ocuments, for clarification o f an application for access to documents because of the large 
number of documents concerned expressly leaves open th e examination o f the application for access, 
so that an action for annulment dir ected against that request is inadmissible.
(see para. 84)
See:
12 October 2000 , T-123/99 JT’s Corporation v C omm ission, para. 25
6. Where clear p rovisions such as Article 6(1) and (2) of Regulation N o 1049 /2001 o f the European 
Parliament and of th e C ouncil regarding public access t o E uropean P arliament, C ouncil and 
Commission d ocuments unequivocally lay down an obligation t o formulate an application i n a 
sufficiently precise manner to allow th e ad ministration to respond to it, failure to fulfil that obligation 
cannot require th at ad ministration t o undertake r esearch itself in order to remedy such lack of 
precision in some c ases expending considerable resources. In an extension o f the rule that individuals 
cannot seek to misuse Community me asures, public servants, where they make a r equest to the public 
authority, are under an obligation t o provide information a nd to act in good faith t owards th e 
institutions.
In that context, although the institution to which an application is made retains the right, in particular 
cases where concrete, individual examination o f the documents would entail an unreasonable amount 
of administrative w ork, to balance the interest in public access to th e documents against the burden 
of work so caused, in o rder to safeguard, in th ose particular c ases, th e interests of good
4 ECLI:EU:F:2011 :3SUMM ARY—CASEF-121/07
STRACKvCOMM ISSION
 administration, the institution m ust, a f ortiori, enjoy that possibility where the application f or access 
concerns a c onsiderable number of documents which are no t identified clearly, so that the processing 
of the application n ecessitates a s ubstantial amount of preliminary research.
(see paras 86, 87, 89)
See:
23 January 2002 , T-386/00 G onçalves v P arliament, para. 74; 17 October 2002 , T-180/00 A stipesca v C omm ission, 
para. 93; 11 March 2003 , T-186/00 C onserve I talia v C omm ission, para. 50; 13 April 2005 , T-2/03 V erein für 
Konsumenteninformation v C omm ission, para. 102