Case T-193/04: Action brought on 1 June 2004 by Hans-Martin Tillack against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-10-09
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, European Commission, action for annulment (EU), corruption, damages, fraud against the EU, freedom of the press

9.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/19

Action brought on 1 June 2004 by Hans-Martin Tillack
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-193/04)

(2004/C 251/36)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 1 June 2004 by Hans-Martin
Tillack, Brussels, represented by Ian S. Forrester, QC, Thierry
Bosly, Christoph Arhold, Nathalie Flandin,
Justus Herrlinger
and Juliette Siaens, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of OLAF to make its complaint to the

German and Belgian authorities;

— award him pecuniary damages for an amount of money to
be fixed by the Court, plus interest at a rate to be fixed by
the Court;

— award him the costs of the present action;

— take such other or further action as justice may require.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

In March 2004, the applicant's office and home were searched
by the Belgian authorities following an official complaint of the
Antifraud Unit of the European Commission (OLAF), accusing
the applicant of bribery of an EU official.

The applicant submits that OLAF's decision must be declared
void, since it was taken in breach of essential procedural
requirements and it infringed the fundamental right of the
protection of journalistic sources.

The applicant alleges that in breach of Article 11(7) of Regu-
lation 1073/1999 (1), the OLAF Supervisory Committee was
not informed prior to the complaints to the national authori-
ties. During the entire internal OLAF investigation, the appli-
cant has never been heard. Moreover, the decision was void in
that it was based on the wrong legal basis. OLAF acted in the
context of an internal OLAF investigation which aims to cover
alleged breaches of applicable rules by officials although the
applicant is neither an official nor a servant of any Community
organ.

submits

the applicant

Furthermore,
that OLAF's decision
infringed the fundamental right of protection of journalistic
sources, as part of freedom of the press, since the national
authorities were asked to search the applicant's home and
office in order to identify his informants within the Commis-
sion.

As far as his application for damages is concerned, the appli-
cant alleges that OLAF's complaints to the national authorities
and its various public accusations of the applicant constituted
maladministration which caused significant injury to the appli-
cant's professional and personal reputation.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 25.12.1999 concerning investigations conducted by
the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (OJ L 136 of 31.5.1999,
p. 1).

Action brought on 14 June 2004 by Ultradent Products,
Inc., and Michael J.S. Renouf against the Commission of
the European Communities

(Case T-237/04)

(2004/C 251/37)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 14 June 2004 by Ultradent Products
Inc., South Jordan, Utah, USA and Michael J. S. Renouf, Brus-
sels, Belguim, represented by Mr S. Crosby and Mr C. Bryant,
Solicitors.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Commission of 5 April 2004 to
refuse to give access to the documents identified in the
administrative procedure,
three
applications, all dated 27 October 2003, for access to docu-
ments connected to the classification of tooth-bleaching
products;

following the applicants'

— Annul the decision of the Commission of 5 April 2004 to
refuse to give access to the documents which must, given
the circumstances, be presumed to exist;

— Order the defendant to pay the applicants' costs pursuant
to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First
Instance.