# C_2023063EN.01002601.xml

| 20.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/26

---

Appeal brought on 29 December 2022 by ‘Sistem ecologica’ production, trade and services d.o.o. Srbac against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 19 October 2022 in Case T-81/21, ‘Sistem ecologica’ production, trade and services d.o.o. v Commission

(Case C-787/22 P)

(2023/C 63/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant:‘Sistem ecologica’ production, trade and services d.o.o. Srbac (represented by: D. Diris, advocaat, D. Rjabynina, advocaat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claim that the Court should:

| — | Declare the Appeal admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the Appeal admissible and well-founded;

| — | Set aside the judgement delivered by the General Court on 19 October 2022 in Case T-81/21; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgement delivered by the General Court on 19 October 2022 in Case T-81/21;

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 263 TFEU, Regulation No 883/2013 (1) and Regulation No 1049/2001 (2), as well as a failure to state reasons and contradictory reasoning in the examination of the admissibility of the action for annulment;

Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 124 of the Bosnian-European Agreement, Article 7(2) and (4) of Protocol 5, Articles 21 juncto 51 CFR and Regulation No 883/2013 in the examination of the applicable law and OLAF’s responsibility in general and in particular during the inspection of 4 December 2019;

Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of the appellant’s privilege against self-incrimination during the inspection of 4 December 2019;

Fourth plea in law, alleging an incorrect application or interpretation of Regulation No 883/2013 as to OLAF’s internal advisory and control mechanism and the appellant’s right to lodge a complaint;

Fifth plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons and a contradictory reasoning as to the appellant’s right to be heard;

Sixth plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons as regards the impartiality of OLAF’s Director-General;

Seventh plea in law, alleging an infringement of, and contradictory reasoning as to the appellant’s rights of defense and in particular Article 9(1) Regulation No 883/2013 with regard to the sampling carried out by Croatian Customs upon OLAF’s request.

---

(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)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001, L 145, p. 43)

---