EU: An European Union court yesterday dismissed a German magazine reporter's attempt to seek damages from EU fraud investigators who had reported him to Belgian and German police for possible bribery.
In a case watched closely for its implications for media freedom, the Court of First Instance in Luxembourg said it had no reason to get involved in the case of Stern magazine's Hans-Martin Tillack.
The EU's fraud unit, Olaf, suspected Mr Tillack had paid money to gain access to an Olaf memo and gave information about him to Belgian and German police in 2004. The EU's second highest court said Olaf had not damaged Mr Tillack because its recommendations had no direct legal effect.
Mr Tillack had sought an annulment of the Olaf referral or damages, or both. He asked the court to fix the exact amount in order to compensate him and act as a deterrent. He provisionally sought €250,000.
"Only measures the legal effects of which are binding . . . may be the subject of annulment," the Luxembourg-based court said in a statement. "The forwarding of information is thus a non-legally binding measure in respect of Mr Tillack and, for that reason, it cannot be regarded as a measure capable of changing his legal position," the court said. Appeals against the court's rulings can be made to the European Court of Justice.
Olaf's action had prompted Belgian authorities to search the reporter's Brussels home and office in March 2004, seizing personal and professional files.
The case was seen by media freedom watchdogs as a test of a reporter's right to keep his sources secret. The International Federation of Journalists had joined Mr Tillack's suit.
Mr Tillack wrote two articles for Stern in 2002, revealing information about problems in the European Commission, based on an internal Olaf memo.
Olaf said a month later payment may have been made to somebody within the agency to obtain the memo. Stern acknowledged it had obtained the memo, but denied it had paid a European Commission official for it.
An EU ombudsman said last year that Olaf had made misleading submissions to him on the case.