Case C-39/05 P: Appeal brought on 2 February 2005 by Kingdom of Sweden against the judgment delivered on 23 November 2004 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-84/03 between Maurizio Turco, supported by Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Denmark and Kingdom of Sweden and Council of the European Union, supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2005-04-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Council of the European Union, General Court (EU), Sweden, access to EU information, action for annulment (EU), confidentiality

30.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/13

Application for authorisation to serve a garnishee order
brought on 9 March 2005 by ALT Ylmy — Ömümcilik
Paydarlar Jemgyyeti against the Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities

(Case C-4/05 SA)

(2005/C 106/25)

Appeal brought on 2 February 2005 by Kingdom of
Sweden against the judgment delivered on 23 November
2004 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities in Case T-84/03 between
Maurizio Turco,
supported by Republic of Finland,
Kingdom of Denmark and Kingdom of Sweden and
Council of the European Union, supported by United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and
Commission of the European Communities

An application for authorisation to serve a garnishee order on
the Commission of the European Communities was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9
March 2005 by ALT Ylmy — Ömümcilik Paydarlar Jemgyyeti,
represented by R. Nathan, avocat.

(Case C-39/05 P)

(2005/C 106/27)

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(Language of the case: English)

— lift the Commission's immunity so that the funds which it
holds in favour of the judgment debtor, in this case CESD
— Communautaire a.s.b.l., may be garnisheed, there being
no argument either in law or in fact that the Commission,
as garnishee, should not validly pay the funds which it
holds provisionally to the judgment creditor;

— order the Commission to pay all the costs.

Application brought on 11 March 2005 by Maria Fernanda
Gil do Nascimento and Others for authorisation to serve a
the European
garnishee order on the Commission of

Communities

(Case C-5/05 SA)

(2005/C 106/26)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 23 November
2004 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-84/03 (1) between Maurizio
Turco, supported by Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Denmark
and Kingdom of Sweden and Council of the European Union,
supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland and Commission of the European Communities, was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Commu-
nities on 2 February 2005 by Kingdom of Sweden, represented
by K. Wistrand, acting as Agent.

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

1. Set aside paragraph 1 of the operative part of the judgment
of the Court of First Instance of 23 November 2004 in Case
T-84/03 Maurizio Turco v Council of the European Union;

2. Annul the Council's decision of 19 December 2002 in so
far as it concerns access to the legal opinion from the Coun-
cil's legal service and

(Language of the case: Portuguese)

3. Order the Council to pay the costs incurred by the Kingdom
of Sweden in the proceedings before the Court of Justice.

An application for authorisation to serve a garnishee order on
the Commission of the European Communities was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
11 March 2005 by Maria Fernanda Gil do Nascimento and
Others, represented by João Carlos Grilo Simões, lawyer.

The applicants claim that the Court should lift the immunity
enjoyed by the Commission and authorise the attachment of
the funds of ISD — Informações, Sistemas e Desenvolvimentos
SA held by the Commission of the European Communities and
intended for the judgment creditors for the payment of wages
and salaries and debts owed in respect thereof.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The Swedish Government submits that
the Court of First
Instance has infringed Community law in the judgment under
appeal.

The Court of First Instance pointed out, on the one hand, that
it
is for the institutions to assess in each individual case
whether the documents whose disclosure is sought actually fall
within the exceptions set out in Regulation No 1049/2001 (2)
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May
2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council
and Commission documents (‘openness regulation’).

C 106/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2005

On the other hand, the Court of First Instance upheld the
Council's assertion that there was a general need for confidenti-
ality for legal opinions in legislative matters. That was so, first,
because the disclosure of documents of that type could give
rise to doubt as to the lawfulness of the legislation in question,
and, second, because the maintenance of the independence of
opinions from the Council's legal service can constitute an
interest worthy of protection. On that basis, the Court of First
Instance found that the Council did not make an error of judg-
ment in refusing access to the legal opinion on the basis of the
exception in the second indent of Article 4(2) of the openness
regulation.

In the view of the Swedish Government, that conclusion is
incompatible with the obligation to assess the question of
disclosure in the light of the content of the specific document.
That finding of the Court of First Instance thus infringed Com-
munity law.

(1) OJ C 112, 10/05/2003, p. 38.
(2) OJ L 145, 31/05/2001, p. 43.

Appeal brought on 9 February 2005 by Maurizio Turco
against the judgment delivered on 23 November 2004 by
the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-84/03 between Maurizio
Turco, supported by Republic of Finland, Kingdom of
Denmark and Kingdom of Sweden and Council of the
European Union, supported by United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland and Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities

(Case C-52/05 P)

(2005/C 106/28)

(Language of procedure: English)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 23 November
2004 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the

European Communities in Case T-84/03 (1) between Maurizio
Turco, supported by Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Denmark
and Kingdom of Sweden and Council of the European Union,
supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland and Commission of the European Communities, was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Commu-
nities on 9 February 2005 by Maurizio Turco, residing in
Pulsano (Italy), represented by O. W. Brouwer and C. E. Schille-
manns, lawyers,

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23

November 2004 by which it:

a) dismissed the action brought by the Appellant in so far
as it concerns the refusal of access to Document No
9077/02, containing an opinion of the Council
legal
service concerning a proposal for a Council Directive
laying down minimum standards for the reception of
Appellants for asylum in Member States;

b) ordered the Appellant and the Council each to bear half

of the costs of the proceedings

— when necessary, refer the case back to the Court of First

Instance for judgment;

— order the Council to pay the costs,

including the costs

incurred by eventual intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The Appellant submits that the judgment of the Court of First
Instance contains errors of law in its interpretation and applica-
tion of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (2) of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001
regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and
Commission documents (the Regulation).

The grounds of appeal and legal arguments on which the
Appellant relies are that the Court of First Instance in the
present case:

(i) did not give the correct interpretation and application of
the term ‘legal advice’ in Article 4(2) of the Regulation;

(ii) wrongly qualified the legal opinion as ‘legal advice’ within
the meaning of Article 4(2) of the Regulation and contra-
vened the scope and content of Articles 4(2) and 4(3) and
the inherent set up and structure of the Regulation;