# C_2022037EN.01003801.xml

| 24.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/38

---

Action brought on 22 October 2021 — AL v Commission and OLAF

(Case T-692/21)

(2022/C 37/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: AL (represented by: R. Rata, lawyer)

Defendants: European Commission, European Anti-Fraud Office

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul (i) the OLAF decision OCM (2021)22007 dated 22 July 2021; (ii) the OLAF decision OCM (2021)22008 dated 22 July 2021; (iii) the Commission decision (ref. Ares(2021)20233749) dated 22 March 2021 and (iv) the Commission decision (ref. Ares(2021)1610971) dated 3 March 2021; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul (i) the OLAF decision OCM (2021)22007 dated 22 July 2021; (ii) the OLAF decision OCM (2021)22008 dated 22 July 2021; (iii) the Commission decision (ref. Ares(2021)20233749) dated 22 March 2021 and (iv) the Commission decision (ref. Ares(2021)1610971) dated 3 March 2021;

| — | order the defendants to pay (i) EUR 1 127,66 retained in the absence of any PMO individual administrative decision in respect of the recovery; (ii) EUR 9 250,05 retained for May, June, July, August, and September 2021 and (iii) EUR 1 ex aequo et bono to compensate for the non-material harm suffered by the applicant as a consequence of the illegal conduct of the OLAF investigation OF/2016/0928/A1 which finally led to the removal from post of the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendants to pay (i) EUR 1 127,66 retained in the absence of any PMO individual administrative decision in respect of the recovery; (ii) EUR 9 250,05 retained for May, June, July, August, and September 2021 and (iii) EUR 1 ex aequo et bono to compensate for the non-material harm suffered by the applicant as a consequence of the illegal conduct of the OLAF investigation OF/2016/0928/A1 which finally led to the removal from post of the applicant;

| — | order the defendants to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendants to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging the violation by OLAF of Article 90(2) and of Article 90a of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, due to the rejection of the applicant’s complaint dated 23 March 2021 as inadmissible based on consistent EU case-law according to which OLAF’s final report and recommendations do not constitute acts producing legal effects. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging the violation by OLAF of Article 90(2) and of Article 90a of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, due to the rejection of the applicant’s complaint dated 23 March 2021 as inadmissible based on consistent EU case-law according to which OLAF’s final report and recommendations do not constitute acts producing legal effects.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging the violation by OLAF of Article 90(2) and Article 90a of the aforesaid Staff Regulations, due to the rejection of the applicant’s complaint dated 23 April 2021 as inadmissible. The applicant alleges that the complaint should have been declared admissible by OLAF because OLAF is a service of the Commission, therefore part of the Commission, and should have assessed the applicant’s complaint. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the violation by OLAF of Article 90(2) and Article 90a of the aforesaid Staff Regulations, due to the rejection of the applicant’s complaint dated 23 April 2021 as inadmissible. The applicant alleges that the complaint should have been declared admissible by OLAF because OLAF is a service of the Commission, therefore part of the Commission, and should have assessed the applicant’s complaint.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging the violation by the Commission of Article 90(2) of the aforesaid Staff Regulations in so far as the Commission issued an implicit rejection decision in relation to the applicant’s complaint directed against the Commission’s decision of 22 March 2021 (ref. ARES(2021)2023374) which confirmed the Commission’s decision of 3 March 2021 (ref. ARES(2021)1610971). |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging the violation by the Commission of Article 90(2) of the aforesaid Staff Regulations in so far as the Commission issued an implicit rejection decision in relation to the applicant’s complaint directed against the Commission’s decision of 22 March 2021 (ref. ARES(2021)2023374) which confirmed the Commission’s decision of 3 March 2021 (ref. ARES(2021)1610971).

---