Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1

C 174/12 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 19.6.


Pleas in law and main arguments The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicants claim to be affected by some provisions of the — annul the Commission’s decision of 5 January 1999
United Kingdom VAT Act 1994, which were adopted on the rejecting his complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff
basis of an enabling power under Article 4(4) of Council Regulations against the Commission’s refusal of authoris-
Directive 77/388/EEC, as amended (the Sixth VAT Directive), ation to publish a detailed transcript of the lecture which
which provides inter alia that ‘each Member State may treat as he had been authorised to give in Cordoba on 30 October
a single taxable person persons established in the territory of 1997 on the subject of ‘The need for economic fine-tuning
the country who, while legally independent, are closely bound at the local and regional level in the Monetary Union of
to one another by financial, economic and organisational the European Union’;
links’. No Member State may, however, rely on this power
unconditionally because Article 4(4) states clearly that its use — declare his claim for authorisation to publish the transcript
is ‘subject to the consultations provided for in Article 29’. of his lecture admissible and well-founded;
Article 29 of the Sixth VAT Directive establishes the ‘Advisory
Committee on VAT’.
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
The applicants are of the view that if the United Kingdom did
not consult the Committee as required or, if no direct evidence
in the form of a probative contemporaneous report of Pleas in law and main arguments
consultation can be adduced, then the abovementioned pro-
visions of United Kingdom law are invalid on the ground of
breach of an essential procedural requirement and cannot be The applicant states that he personally participated in a
applied as against the applicant. seminar, at which he gave a lecture, having requested and
obtained the authorisation of his superiors at the Commission
The applicants did ask the United Kingdom authorities for on the strength of a résurmé and an outline of the main points
details of the consultations, but the request was declined on he was going to raise in his presentation. Subsequently, the
the grounds that the relevant details were not in the public organisers of the seminar asked him to supply a detailed text
domain. The applicants consequently lodged an application of his lecture for an inclusion in a publication they intended
with the defendant. The defendant did not reply to the to issue. The applicant’s application under Article 17(2) of the
application for access within one month of the application Staff Regulations for leave to publish the text in question was
being made or within one month to the application for review. refused by the Commission on the grounds that, first, it risked
compromising the interests of the institution by reducing its
The applicants submit that, by failing to reply within one room for manoeuvre, and, secondly, there were significant
month of the application for review, the defendant was deemed differences between the résumé of the lecture (which had been
to have refused the application by virtue of Article 2(4) of the the basis of the authorisation to deliver it) and the text in
Access Decision. That refusal is unlawful per se and also question.
because it is not accompanied by a statement of reasons and
therefore infringes Article 190 EC, which is a mandatory The applicant challenges that statement of reasons, arguing
provision. The time-limit of one month for each of the that, in denying him the right to publish his article, the
abovementioned applications imposes a necessary discipline, Commission committed an obvious error of assessment and a
designed to protect the rights of persons such as the applicants misuse of powers, and infringed the principle of the protection
who seek access to documents against prevarication, by of legitimate expectations and duty to have due regard for the
requiring the Commission to do everything necessary — welfare of officials.
including the conduct of internal consultations and the
obtaining of all necessary consents — within the time-limit,
and must be regarded as mandatory and binding in all respects.

Action brought on 12 April 1999 by Michael Cwik against Action brought on 13 April 1999 by Michel Hendrickx
the Commission of the European Communities against CEDEFOP
(Case T-82/99)
(Case T-87/99)
(1999/C 174/24)
(1999/C 174/25)
(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi- (Language of the case: French)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 12 April 1999 by Michael Cwik,
residing at Tervuren (Belgium), represented by Nicholas Lhöest, An action against the European Centre for the Development
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP) was brought before the
at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange. Court of First Instance of the European Communities on