# C_2021053EN.01005801.xml

| 15.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 53/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/58

---

Action brought on 21 December 2020 — IMG v Commission

(Case T-752/20)

(2021/C 53/75)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: International Management Group (IMG) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and J.-Y. de Cara, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the present action admissible and well founded;
  and therefore, |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present action admissible and well founded;

and therefore,

| — | rule that the European Commission has incurred non-contractual liability; |
| --- | --- |

—

rule that the European Commission has incurred non-contractual liability;

| — | order the defendant to pay compensation for the damage sustained by the applicant, valued, subject to any adjustment, at EUR 10 000 per month for a period beginning in mid-December 2015 and running until delivery of the judgment to be given, in respect of the non-material damage, and at EUR 2,1 million in respect of the material damage (to be increased by late payment interest); |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay compensation for the damage sustained by the applicant, valued, subject to any adjustment, at EUR 10 000 per month for a period beginning in mid-December 2015 and running until delivery of the judgment to be given, in respect of the non-material damage, and at EUR 2,1 million in respect of the material damage (to be increased by late payment interest);

| — | order the defendant to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action seeking compensation for the material and non-material damage which it claims to have sustained as a result of the conduct of the Commission and of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) in the investigation concerning it, the applicant puts forward the following arguments:

| 1. | As regards OLAF’s misconduct, the applicant alleges the following illegalities:






  a) | As regards the legal framework of the investigation, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 1 of Regulation No 883/2013, (1) Article 2 of Decision 1999/352, (2) Article 8.1 of the Guidelines on Investigation Procedures for OLAF staff and of the duty of due diligence. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

As regards OLAF’s misconduct, the applicant alleges the following illegalities:

a)

As regards the legal framework of the investigation, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 1 of Regulation No 883/2013, (1) Article 2 of Decision 1999/352, (2) Article 8.1 of the Guidelines on Investigation Procedures for OLAF staff and of the duty of due diligence.

| b) | As regards the misinterpretation of the concept of international organisation, the applicant alleges infringement of Articles 53 and 53d of Regulation No 1605/2002, (3) Article 43 of Regulation No 2342/2002 (4) and, where appropriate, of Article 58 of Regulation No 966/2012 (5) and Article 43 of Regulation No 1268/2012. (6) The applicant also alleges violation of international law and breach of the duty of due diligence. |
| --- | --- |

b)

As regards the misinterpretation of the concept of international organisation, the applicant alleges infringement of Articles 53 and 53d of Regulation No 1605/2002, (3) Article 43 of Regulation No 2342/2002 (4) and, where appropriate, of Article 58 of Regulation No 966/2012 (5) and Article 43 of Regulation No 1268/2012. (6) The applicant also alleges violation of international law and breach of the duty of due diligence.

| c) | As regards the conduct of the investigation, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 9 of Regulation No 883/2013, Article 8.5 of OLAF’s guidelines, the principle of impartiality, the rules on the taking of evidence, the duty of due diligence and the presumption of innocence. |
| --- | --- |

c)

As regards the conduct of the investigation, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 9 of Regulation No 883/2013, Article 8.5 of OLAF’s guidelines, the principle of impartiality, the rules on the taking of evidence, the duty of due diligence and the presumption of innocence.

| d) | As regards the drafting of the report, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 9 of Regulation No 883/2013, the principle of impartiality, the rules on the taking of evidence, the duty of due diligence and the presumption of innocence. |
| --- | --- |

d)

As regards the drafting of the report, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 9 of Regulation No 883/2013, the principle of impartiality, the rules on the taking of evidence, the duty of due diligence and the presumption of innocence.

| 2. | As regards the misconduct of OLAF and of the Commission, the applicant submits that, on account of leaks that led to the publication of OLAF’s final report, the Commission and OLAF infringed their duty of confidentiality, Article 10 of Regulation No 883/2013, Article 8 of OLAF’s guidelines and Article 339 TFEU, and the duty of due diligence and care. |
| --- | --- |

2.

As regards the misconduct of OLAF and of the Commission, the applicant submits that, on account of leaks that led to the publication of OLAF’s final report, the Commission and OLAF infringed their duty of confidentiality, Article 10 of Regulation No 883/2013, Article 8 of OLAF’s guidelines and Article 339 TFEU, and the duty of due diligence and care.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 September 2013 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (Euratom) No 1074/1999 (OJ 2013 L 248, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Decision 1999/352/EC, ECSC, Euratom of 28 April 1999 establishing the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF) (OJ 1999 L 136, p. 20).

(3)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1).

(4)  Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 357, p. 1).

(5)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1).

(6)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2012 L 362, p. 1).

---