# C_2023035EN.01007101.xml

| 30.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/71 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/71

---

Action brought on 18 November 2022 — LG and Others v Commission

(Case T-730/22)

(2023/C 35/92)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: LG and seven other applicants (represented by: A. Sigal and M. Teder, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | declare that the defendant has acted unlawfully under Article 9(4) of the Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013, (1) as amended by Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2223, (2) by not sending the applicants reasonably detailed and clear fact statements that would clarify whether and how the applicants’ actions have, in OLAF’s views, harmed the interests of the European Union, and not providing the applicants an additional opportunity to comment on such fact statements; and |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the defendant has acted unlawfully under Article 9(4) of the Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013, (1) as amended by Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2223, (2) by not sending the applicants reasonably detailed and clear fact statements that would clarify whether and how the applicants’ actions have, in OLAF’s views, harmed the interests of the European Union, and not providing the applicants an additional opportunity to comment on such fact statements; and

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that OLAF has failed to act by not providing the applicants, who have been named as persons concerned in an OLAF investigation, a meaningful opportunity to comment on the facts concerning them, in accordance with Article 9(4) and Article 9(b)(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013, as amended by Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2223. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that OLAF has failed to act by not providing the applicants, who have been named as persons concerned in an OLAF investigation, a meaningful opportunity to comment on the facts concerning them, in accordance with Article 9(4) and Article 9(b)(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013, as amended by Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2223.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that OLAF has failed to act in accordance with the principle of good administration by not disclosing, with the statement of facts provided to the applicants, the preliminary allegations against the applicants that would allow them to assess the relevance of the stated facts and to comment on such facts. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that OLAF has failed to act in accordance with the principle of good administration by not disclosing, with the statement of facts provided to the applicants, the preliminary allegations against the applicants that would allow them to assess the relevance of the stated facts and to comment on such facts.

---

(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 (EU, Euratom) 2020/2223 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 December 2020 amending Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013, as regards cooperation with the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and the effectiveness of the European Anti-Fraud Office investigations (OJ 2020 L 437, p. 49).

---