Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 April 2022 –Planistat Europe and Charlot v Commission
(Case T‑735/20) (1)
(Non-contractual liability – ‘Eurostat’ case – External investigation by OLAF – Forwarding to the national judicial authorities of information concerning matters liable to result in criminal proceedings before the conclusion of the investigation – Filing of a complaint by the Commission before the conclusion of the investigation – National criminal proceedings – Ruling that there is no need to adjudicate which has become final – No sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals)
1.      Actions for damages – Limitation period – Starting point of the limitation period – Damage of a continuing nature – Date on which the harmful effects of the measure with regard to the person concerned became apparent – Date to be taken into consideration
(Art. 340, second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 46 and 53, first para.)
(see paras 32-37, 48)
2.      Actions for damages – Subject matter – Claim for compensation for the non-material damage caused by the criminal proceedings initiated by the national authorities following the transmission of information by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and the filing of a complaint by the Commission – Damage of a continuing nature – Action brought timely for this damage – Admissibility
(Art. 268 TFEU)
(see paras 41, 43-46, 49, 50)
3.      Actions for damages – Subject matter – Claim for compensation for non-material damage resulting from the publicity given to the name of the person concerned following the transmission of information by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and the filing of a complaint by the Commission – Action brought out of time for this damage – Inadmissibility
(Art. 268 TFEU)
(see para. 47)
4.      Actions for damages – Subject matter – Claim for compensation for material damage resulting from the termination of contracts by the Commission and the impossibility to conclude contracts with other clients – Prescribed claim – Inadmissibility
(Art. 268 TFEU)
(see paras 58-63)
5.      Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals – Transmission to national authorities of information gathered in the framework of an investigation by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and filing of a complaint by the Commission – Alleged unlawful conduct of OLAF and the Commission due to a slanderous accusation – Jurisdiction of the EU judicature – Limits – Jurisdiction to rule on the interpretation of national law – Not included
(Art. 340, second para., TFEU)
(see paras 64-66, 75, 76)
6.      European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) – Regulation No 1073/1999 concerning investigations conducted by OLAF – Right to sound administration – Information contained in a note and transmitted to the national judicial authority before confirmation in the final report of the investigation – Infringement of the principle of sound administration – None
(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1073/1999, Recital 13 and Arts 9(1) and (3) and 10(1))
(see paras 82, 86-91)
7.      Actions – Act adversely affecting an official – Concept – Decision of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) to transmit information to national judicial authorities – Not included – Infringement of the rights of the defence – Irrelevant
(Art. 4(3) TEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1073/1999, Art. 10(1))
(see paras 93-96)
8.      European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) – Investigations – External investigations – Possibility for the Commission to bring a civil action and a complaint before a national judicial authority concerning the facts covered by the investigation before this investigation is closed – Condition – Compliance with a reasonable time limit – No service-related fault (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1073/1999, Art. 9(3))
(see paras 108-114)
Operative part
The Court:
1.
Dismisses the action;
2.
Orders Planistat Europe and Mr Hervé-Patrick Charlot to pay the costs.
1 OJ C 53, 15.2.2021.