An action against the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 24 March 2003 by Jose Maria Sison, Utrecht, the Netherlands, represented by Mr J. Fermon, Mr A. Comte, Mr H. Schultz and Mr D. Gurses, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul, on the basis of art. 230 of EC Treaty, Council Decision of 21 January 2003 (41/c/01/02): Answer adopted by the Council on the 21st of January 2003 to the confirmatory application of M. Jan Fermon sent by fax on the 11 of December 2002 under Article 7 (2) of the Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, notified to the applicant’s counsel on January 23, 2003.

— require the respondent party to bear the costs of suit.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present case, who is also the applicant in Case T-47/03 Sison against Council and Commission (1), pursues the annulment of the defendants decision not to allow him access to all the documents which formed the basis of the Council Decision 2002/848/EC (2), by which the applicant himself and the New People’s Army (NPA) are included in the list pertinent to Article 2(3) of Regulation 2580/2001(3), as
well as access to any information regarding which Member States provided documents mentioned in the contested Decision. The applicant also asked to be informed about the rules and criteria applied by the Council regarding sensitive documents that shall be made public following Article 9, point 6, of Regulation 1049/2001(4).

The Council’s position was based on Article 4(a), first and third points, of the Regulation 1049/2001. According to the defendant, the disclosure of information with regard to combatting terrorism, which is in the possession of the Member States authorities, could give the persons, entities or groups who are the subject of this information, the opportunity to threaten the efforts of these authorities and thus undermine the protection of public interest as regards public security. With reference to the Member States that provided sensitive documents, the Council stated that the ‘originator authority’ is opposed to the disclosure of the requested information. About the rules concerning sensitive documents, the Council referred to the Council decision 2001/264/CE adopting the Council’s security regulations.

In support of its application, the applicant submits:

— Failure of motivation and violation of the principle of sound administration.

— Violation of the principles enshrined in Article 6 ECHR and especially of the right to be informed promptly, in a language which the applicant understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation, as well as of the principle of proportionality.

With regard to this last point, the applicant states that the right to be informed of the cause of the accusation against him cannot be neutralised by the protection of public interest as regards public security and international relations. Considering all the damages suffered by the applicant, the balance of interest is in his favour.

_________________________________
(1) Not published in the OJ yet.
(2) Council Decision of 28 October 2002 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2002/460/EC (OJ L 295 of 30.10.2001, p. 12).
(3) Council Regulation of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (OJ L 344 of 28.12.2001, p. 70).
(4) Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ L 145 of 31.5.2001, p. 43).