CELEX: C1998/234/48
Language: en
Date: 1998-07-25 00:00:00
Title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 17 June 1998 in Case T-174/95: Svenska Journalistförbundet v Council of the European Union (Access to information - Council Decision 93/731/EC - Refusal of an application for access to Council documents - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Title VI of the Treaty on European Union - Scope of the exception concerning the protection of public security - Confidentiality of the Council's proceedings - Statement of reasons - Publication of the defence on the Internet - Abuse of procedure)

25.7.98               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 234/25
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 17 June 1998                                                      of 26 May 1998
in Case T-174/95: Svenska Journalistförbundet v Council                    in Case T-205/96: Roland Bieber v European
                  of the European Union (1)                                                  Parliament (1)
(Access to information Ð Council Decision 93/731/EC Ð               (Officials Ð Belated reinstatement Ð Liability Ð
Refusal of an application for access to Council documents                                       Damage)
Ð Action for annulment Ð Admissibility Ð Title VI of                                         (98/C 234/49)
the Treaty on European Union Ð Scope of the exception
concerning the protection of public security Ð
Confidentiality of the Council's proceedings Ð Statement                            (Language of the case: French)
of reasons Ð Publication of the defence on the Internet Ð
                     Abuse of procedure)                            In Case T-205/96: Roland Bieber, an official of the
                                                                    European Parliament, residing in Brussels, represented by
                        (98/C 234/48)
                                                                    Georges Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar, with an
                                                                    address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
                                                                    Fiduciaire Myson SaÁrl, 30 Rue de Cessange, v European
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                    Parliament (Agent: Evelyn Waldherr) Ð application, first,
                                                                    for annulment of the decision of 18 October 1995
                                                                    implicitly    rejecting     the  applicant's   request  for
In Case T-174/95: Svenska Journalistförbundet, established
                                                                    reinstatement following the conclusion of his period of
in Stockholm, represented by Onno W. Brouwer, of the
                                                                    leave on personal grounds and compensation for the
Amsterdam Bar, and FreÂdeÂric P. Louis, of the Brussels Bar,
                                                                    damage allegedly resulting from his non-reinstatement
assisted by Deirdre Curtin, Professor at the University of
                                                                    and, second, for compensation for the damage allegedly
Utrecht, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                    caused by the delay in his reinstatement Ð the Court of
Chambers of Loesch and Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe,
                                                                    First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J. Azizi,
supported by Kingdom of Sweden (Agent: Lotty
                                                                    President, R. García-Valdecasas and M. Jaeger, Judges; J.
Nordling), Kingdom of Denmark (Agents: Peter Biering
                                                                    Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
and Laurids Mikñlsen), and Kingdom of the Netherlands
                                                                    given a judgment on 26 May 1998, in which it:
(Agents: Marc Fierstra and Johannes Steven van den
Oosterkamp) against Council of the European Union
(Agents: Giorgio Maganza and Diego Canga Fano),                     1. Annuls the decision implicitly rejecting the request for
supported by French Republic (Agents: Catherine de Salins               reinstatement and compensation lodged by the
and Denys Wibaux), and United Kingdom of Great Britain                  applicant on 18 October 1995;
and Northern Ireland (Agent: John Collins) Ð application
for the annulment of the Council's decision of 6 July 1995
                                                                    2. Orders the Parliament to compensate the applicant for
refusing the applicant access to certain documents
                                                                        the material damage suffered by him as a result of his
concerning the European Police Office (Europol),
                                                                        not having been reinstated with effect from 1 January
requested under Council Decision 93/731/EC of
                                                                        1995 in Grade A 3, step 6, as a legal adviser in the
20 December 1993 on public access to Council documents
                                                                        Parliament, that post having been advertised in
(OJ L 340 of 31.12.1993, p. 43) Ð the Court of First
                                                                        Vacancy Notice No 7580 of 5 December 1994;
Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition),
composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, P. Lindh, J. Azizi,
J. D. Cooke and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has          3. Declares that the sum payable to the applicant by way
given a judgment on 17 June 1998, in which it:                          of compensation for his loss of income from
                                                                        employment is equivalent to the difference between,
                                                                        on the one hand, the net remuneration which he
1. Annuls the Council's decision of 6 July 1995 refusing                would have received between 1 January 1995 and
    the applicant access to certain documents relating to               8 March 1996 and, on the other hand, the total net
    the European Police Office (Europol);                               income received by him in the performance of other
                                                                        activities;
2. Orders the Council to pay two-thirds               of  the       4. Orders that there be added to that sum an amount
    applicant's costs as well as its own costs;                         corresponding to the loss resulting from the absence of
                                                                        automatic advancement in step;
3. Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the French
    Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the                   5. Orders that interest on the total sums specified in
    Kingdom of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great                   points 3 and 4 above be paid at the annual rate of
    Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.               4.5 % in respect of the period from 12 December 1996
                                                                        to the date when payment is received the applicant;
(1) OJ C 299 of 11.11.1995.
                                                                    6. Orders the Parliament to re-establish the applicant's
                                                                        pension rights in such a way as to make up for the
                                                                        difference between the pension rights to which he