# C_2013046EN.01002401.xml

| 16.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 46/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/24

---

Action brought on 24 December 2012 — Dalli v Commission

(Case T-562/12)

2013/C 46/43

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: John Dalli (St. Julians, Malta) (represented by: L. Levi, A. Alamanou and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the oral decision of 16 October 2012 of his termination of office with immediate effect, taken by the President of the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the oral decision of 16 October 2012 of his termination of office with immediate effect, taken by the President of the European Commission;

| — | Order the defendant to pay compensation of both the moral and material prejudice; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay compensation of both the moral and material prejudice; and

| — | Order the defendant to bear the entire costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to bear the entire costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging violation of Articles 245 and 247 TFEU, as the challenged decision has been adopted by an non competent author. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging violation of Articles 245 and 247 TFEU, as the challenged decision has been adopted by an non competent author.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging, on a subsidiary basis, violation of Article 17.6 TEU and of the general principle of legal certainty, as the challenged decision cannot be considered as entailing a valid resignation of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging, on a subsidiary basis, violation of Article 17.6 TEU and of the general principle of legal certainty, as the challenged decision cannot be considered as entailing a valid resignation of the applicant.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging manifests errors and breach of procedural rules, as the challenged decision does not rest on valid grounds and the OLAF findings, on which the challenged decision is based, result from an illegal procedure. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging manifests errors and breach of procedural rules, as the challenged decision does not rest on valid grounds and the OLAF findings, on which the challenged decision is based, result from an illegal procedure.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging violation of the rights of defence, as the applicant was unable to make any appraisal and assessment of the facts to be held against him. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging violation of the rights of defence, as the applicant was unable to make any appraisal and assessment of the facts to be held against him.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of proportionality, as the applicant was unable to know which are the objectives legitimately pursued by the challenged decision and if any possible other measure less punitive has been explored. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of proportionality, as the applicant was unable to know which are the objectives legitimately pursued by the challenged decision and if any possible other measure less punitive has been explored.

---