Scientology certainly did so. As they had done so in 1995, lawyers for the organization convinced law enforcement officers to raid Panoussis' home and seize his computer, after which a lawsuit was filed for copyright infringement. Panoussis defended himself in court without legal assistance, and it was quickly learned by both Scientology and its online opponents that Panoussis was very familiar with the workings of the legal system in his home country of Sweden.
In his defense, Panoussis invoked a special clause of the Constitution of Sweden known as offentlighetsprincipen. This is a provision of the Swedish Constitution that guarantees access to public documents in order to prevent corruption and fraud, and it is considered a basic civil right in Sweden. (The American equivalent to this law would be the Freedom of Information Act.) Panoussis turned over a copy of the NOTS documents to the office of the Swedish Parliament, and by law a copy of the documents was available for anyone from the public to see, at any time he or she wished.
In the years between 1997 and 2000, Scientology made numerous attempts to remove the NOTS documents from the Parliament offices. Repeated requests to have the documents sealed were denied, and the documents were actually stolen from the Parliament office on two separate occasions. (Spokesmen for Scientology denied that the organization was behind the thefts.) Scientology even convinced the United States Congress to get involved in the affair, and diplomatic influence from the offices of various members of Congress was used to attempt to convince the Parliament to remove the NOTS documents.
Panoussis put up a tough defense in court, but the ultimate verdict was against him. He was ordered to pay damages of over $100,000 (American), an amount that he was unable to afford. Panoussis chose to emigrate to The Netherlands instead.
After three years of repeated requests and demands by Scientology to remove the NOTS documents from the public record, in the year 2000 Parliament finally enacted a clause of Swedish copyright law to order the NOTS documents sealed away from public view. This move provoked a number of legal scholars in Sweden to issue protests, noting that the move effectively meant that copyright law overruled the Constitution of Sweden. Debate on the matter has not ended as of 2002.