# C_2021163EN.01003801.xml

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/38

---

Action brought on 3 February 2021 — Sistem ecologica v Commission

(Case T-81/21)

(2021/C 163/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant:‘Sistem ecologica’ production, trade and services d.o.o. Srbac (Srbac, Bosnia-Herzegovina) (represented by: D. Diris, D. Rjabynina, and C. Kocks, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare unlawful OLAF’s failure to take, in regard to it, the measures laid down by the relevant rules, namely, to notify it of the decision to open inquiries or an investigation concerning it individually, to inform it of inquiries or investigations liable to implicate it personally, and to enable it to express its views on all the facts concerning it before conclusions relating to it individually are drawn from those inquiries or investigations; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare unlawful OLAF’s failure to take, in regard to it, the measures laid down by the relevant rules, namely, to notify it of the decision to open inquiries or an investigation concerning it individually, to inform it of inquiries or investigations liable to implicate it personally, and to enable it to express its views on all the facts concerning it before conclusions relating to it individually are drawn from those inquiries or investigations;

| — | annul the decision taken by OLAF on 25 November 2020 refusing the applicant’s request to grant access to its investigation file; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision taken by OLAF on 25 November 2020 refusing the applicant’s request to grant access to its investigation file;

| — | annul the decision taken by OLAF on 25 November 2020 to consider the applicant’s comments of 16 October 2020 as complaints; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision taken by OLAF on 25 November 2020 to consider the applicant’s comments of 16 October 2020 as complaints;

| — | annul the decision taken by OLAF on 27 November 2020 rejecting the applicant’s complaints of 16 October 2020; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision taken by OLAF on 27 November 2020 rejecting the applicant’s complaints of 16 October 2020;

| — | annul the decision taken by OLAF on 8 December 2020 that the investigation concerning it was closed; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision taken by OLAF on 8 December 2020 that the investigation concerning it was closed;

| — | annul the decision taken by OLAF on 21 December 2020 that the applicant’s complaints of 14 December 2020 will not be considered as complaints; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision taken by OLAF on 21 December 2020 that the applicant’s complaints of 14 December 2020 will not be considered as complaints;

| — | declare that the information and data relating to it and any relevant evidence forwarded to the national authorities constitute inadmissible evidence, among which OLAF’s mission report of 16 January 2020, communication of 9 June 2020, and final report of 8 December 2020; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the information and data relating to it and any relevant evidence forwarded to the national authorities constitute inadmissible evidence, among which OLAF’s mission report of 16 January 2020, communication of 9 June 2020, and final report of 8 December 2020;

| — | declare any investigative procedures carried out in the investigation following the aforementioned decisions unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare any investigative procedures carried out in the investigation following the aforementioned decisions unlawful;

| — | declare any conclusions drawn from those investigations unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare any conclusions drawn from those investigations unlawful;

| — | declare any information transferred to national authorities unlawful, among which the Communication of 9 June 2020, and the final report of 8 December 2020; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare any information transferred to national authorities unlawful, among which the Communication of 9 June 2020, and the final report of 8 December 2020;

| — | order the Commission to pay the applicant the amount of EUR 3 026 388,74 in compensation for damage, assessed provisionally, together with interest, at the rate of 8 % per annum from 15 June 2020 until full payment, due to OLAF’s unlawful conduct and of the loss caused to the applicant’s professional activities and reputation; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the applicant the amount of EUR 3 026 388,74 in compensation for damage, assessed provisionally, together with interest, at the rate of 8 % per annum from 15 June 2020 until full payment, due to OLAF’s unlawful conduct and of the loss caused to the applicant’s professional activities and reputation;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging the breach of the principles of transparency and independence of OLAF’s investigation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging the breach of the principles of transparency and independence of OLAF’s investigation.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of impartiality. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of impartiality.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging violation of the privilege against self- incrimination. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging violation of the privilege against self- incrimination.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the right to information pursuant to Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 883/2013 (1). |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the right to information pursuant to Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 883/2013 (1).

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging violation of the right to be heard before adverse measures are taken. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging violation of the right to be heard before adverse measures are taken.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging violation of the right of presumption of innocence. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging violation of the right of presumption of innocence.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging the infringement of the principles of confidentiality and data protection, pursuant to Article 10 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 883/2013. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging the infringement of the principles of confidentiality and data protection, pursuant to Article 10 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 883/2013.

| 8. | Eighth plea in law, alleging the violation of Article 41(2)(b) of the Charter: infringement of the applicant’s right to have access to the file, and the principle of good administration. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging the violation of Article 41(2)(b) of the Charter: infringement of the applicant’s right to have access to the file, and the principle of good administration.

| 9. | Ninth plea in law, alleging the infringement of Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 (2). |
| --- | --- |

9.

Ninth plea in law, alleging the infringement of Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 (2).

| 10. | Tenth plea in law, alleging the infringement of the principle of due diligence. |
| --- | --- |

10.

Tenth plea in law, alleging the infringement of the principle of due diligence.

| 11. | Eleventh plea in law, alleging the infringement of the duty to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

11.

Eleventh plea in law, alleging the infringement of the duty to state reasons.

| 12. | Twelfth plea in law, alleging the violation of the applicant’s rights of defence. |
| --- | --- |

12.

Twelfth plea in law, alleging the violation of the applicant’s rights of defence.

| 13. | Thirteenth plea in law, alleging the annulment of OLAF’s decisions. |
| --- | --- |

13.

Thirteenth plea in law, alleging the annulment of OLAF’s decisions.

| 14. | Fourteenth plea in law, alleging OLAF’s non-contractual liability for damages incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

14.

Fourteenth plea in law, alleging OLAF’s non-contractual liability for damages incurred by the applicant.

---

(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).

---