Notice for the OJ
SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1Action brought on 1 June 2004 by Hans-Martin Tillack against the Commission of the European Communities
(Case T-193/04)
Language of the case: English
An action against the Commission of the European Communities 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 Regulation 1073/991, the OLAF Supervisory Committee was not informed prior to the complaints to the national authorities. During the entire internal OLAF investigation, the applicant 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.
Furthermore, the applicant submits 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 Commission.
As far as his application for damages is concerned, the applicant 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 applicant's professional and personal reputation.
____________1 - Regulation (EC) No 073/999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25.2.999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (OJ L 36 of 3.5.999, p. )