CELEX: C1997/228/51
Language: en
Date: 1997-07-26 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 15 May 1997 by Fabienne Gutmann-Vormus against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-158/97)

26 . 7 . 97           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 228/21
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                             protection — also recognized by Community law — that
                                                                     each time he should be forced to bring legal proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  (') OJ No L 340, 31 . 12. 1993 , p. 41 .
In the course of researching the authorization of a type of
genetically modified maize, the applicant, who is
managing editor of a juridico-political review, twice
submitted a written request to the Commission for access             Action brought on 14 May 1997 by Glenn Phillips against
to documents. Apart from a communication to the effect                       the Commission of the European Communities
that the first request (which had been addressed to the                                        ( Case T-157/97)
Commission 's office in the Federal Republic of Germany )
would be forwarded to the Commission in Brussels, which                                          ( 97/C 228/50 )
is responsible for such matters, the Commission did not
reply to the applicant's requests .                                                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
In the applicant's view, the Commission's inaction                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
constitutes, in accordance with Article 2 (4 ), second               Instance of the European Communities on 14 May 1997
subparagraph, of Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom, a                 by Glenn Phillips, residing in Brussels, represented by
final rejection of the request for access to the documents           Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
(a 'constructive refusal') against which an action for               service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
annulment may be brought under Article 173 of the EC                 Sari , 30 Rue de Cessange .
Treaty by virtue of the Code of conduct concerning public
access to Council and Commission documents (Decision
93/730/EC ) ('). The constructive refusal to send the                The applicant claims that the Court should:
applicant the documents requested contravenes the right
of access conferred by Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC,                      — annul the Commission's decision of 22 July 1996
Euratom, since it is settled law that the applicant has a                 rejecting the applicant's request that it give
legitimate interest in the disclosure of information and the              consideration to the possible application of
Commission did not claim that this case constituted an                    Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
exception; secondly, since the legal system of the great
majority of the Member States provides for access to such
                                                                     — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the Commission's
documents, the Commission has also breached the general
                                                                          decision adopted on 3 February 1997 expressly
legal principle of public access to documents held by the
                                                                          rejecting the applicant's complaint,
public authorities.
                                                                     — order the defendant to pay all the costs .
The applicant also argues that the Commission has
infringed Article 190 of the EC Treaty since its failure to          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
reply to the applicant's requests amounts to a constructive
refusal and therefore constitutes an individual measure
which must state the reasons on which it is based, and               The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
hence a decision .                                                   Case T- 16/97 ( l ).
                                                                     (') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
The applicant further maintains that the Commission has
breached the obligation laid down in Article 1 of Decision
94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom to give reasons . Also, in view
of the close link between procedural rights and the
exercise of discretion, the Commission is guilty of a
misuse of powers, within the meaning of Article 173 of               Action brought on 15 May 1997 by Fabienne Gutmann­
the EC Treaty.                                                       Vormus against the Commission of the European
                                                                                                  Communities
                                                                                               (Case T-158/97)
The applicant essentially relies on similar arguments in
                                                                                                 ( 97/C 228/51 )
support of his claim that the constructive refusal provided
for in Article 2 (4 ) of Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom
should consequently be declared inapplicable, pursuant to                             (Language of the case: French)
Article 184 of the EC Treaty. The applicant asserts that he
has a special interest because it is to be expected that, as         An action against the Commission of the European
a journalist, he will again be confronted with the                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
Commission's administrative practice based on that rule,             Instance of the European Communities on 15 May 1997
and it is contrary to the principle of effective legal               by Fabienne Gutmann-Vormus, residing in Brussels,
 ---pagebreak--- No C 228/22             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 26 . 7. 97
represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an            Action brought on 23 May 1997 by Massimo Marzola
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fidu­                 against the Commission of the European Communities
ciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .                                                      ( Case T-161/97)
                                                                                               ( 97/C 228/53 )
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the Commission's decision of 8 August 1996                                    (Language of the case: French)
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give
     consideration to the possible application of                      An action against the Commission of the European
     Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                       Instance of the European Communities on 23 May 1997
— annul , in so far as may be necessary, the Commission's              by Massimo Marzola, residing in Brussels, represented
     decision adopted on 3 February 1997 expressly                     by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane
     rejecting the applicant's complaint,                              Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                       Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30
— order the defendant to pay all the costs.                            Rue de Cessange .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                 — annul the Commission's decision refusing to transfer
Case T- 16/97 (').
                                                                            to the Community scheme the pension rights acquired
                                                                            by him in the USA between 1 March 1977 and
H OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p. 27.
                                                                            31 August 1985 ,
                                                                       — order the defendant to pay the costs .
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Action brought on 23 May 1997 by Hans Gevaert against
        the Commission of the European Communities
                          ( Case T-160/97 )                            The applicant states that, upon becoming established in
                                                                       March 1986, he requested the transfer to the Community
                            ( 97/C 228/52 )                            scheme of the pension rights acquired by him in a private
                 (Language of the case: French)                        pension scheme in the United States. In the absence of a
                                                                       favourable response, he took numerous steps to secure the
                                                                       transfer of rights acquired by him in an Italian pension
An action against the Commission of the European                       scheme, with a view to procuring the subsequent transfer
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      of those rights to the Community scheme . That course of
Instance of the European Communities on 23 May 1997
                                                                       action, which was acceptable to the Commission, was
by Hans Gevaert, residing at Merelbeke ( Belgium ),                    rejected by the competent Italian administrative
represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an            authorities. On 27 August 1996 the applicant ultimately
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fidu­
                                                                       decided to submit a formal request under Article 90 ( 1 ) of
ciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .
                                                                       the Staff Regulations of Officials for the transfer to the
                                                                       Community scheme of the pension rights in issue . That
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            request was rejected by the defendant, on the ground that
                                                                       it had not been submitted within the prescribed period of
— annul the Commission's decision of 26 August 1996                    six months from the date of the applicant's appointment.
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give                    That rejection constitutes the decision which is contested
     consideration to the possible application of                      in the present case .
     Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the Commission 's              The applicant pleads, first, infringement of Article 11 (2 )
                                                                       of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations and breach of the
     decision adopted on 3 February 1997 expressly
                                                                       duty to have regard for the welfare and interests of
     rejecting the applicant's complaint,
                                                                       officials; he maintains that the Commission provided him
                                                                       with incorrect information concerning the possibility of
— order the defendant to pay all the costs .                           having the rights acquired in the United States transferred
                                                                       to the Community pension scheme and the procedure to
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   be followed for the submission of a request to that effect.
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
 Case T- 16/97 (>).                                                    He also maintains that the contested decision is vitiated,
                                                                       contrary to Article 25 of the Staff Regulations, by a total
 H OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
                                                                       absence of any relevant statement of reasons .