Appeal brought on 16 August 2019 by John Dalli against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 6 June 2019 in Case T-399/17: Dalli v Commission

(Case C-615/19 P)

(2019/C 328/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: John Dalli (represented by: L. Levi, avocate, S. Rodrigues, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Forms of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the contested judgment and declare the appellant’s requests in case T-399/17 admissible and well-founded, and consequently, order — the compensation of the prejudice, notably the moral prejudice, which can be estimated, on a provisional basis, at 1 000 000 Euros; — the defendant to bear the entire costs.

— order the European Commission to pay the costs of both the appeal and of the proceedings at first instance in full.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By his first plea in law the appellant alleges several errors in law, namely violation of the duty to state reasons and distortion of the file by rejecting the first complaint related to the unlawfulness of the decision to open the investigation.

Second, the appellant alleges that the General Court erred in law by rejecting the second complaint related to flaws in the characterisation of the investigation and the unlawful extension of the investigation.

Third, the appellant alleges a distortion of evidence and breach of the rights of the defence in the General Court’s judgment in which the third complaint related to breach of the principles governing the gathering of evidence and distortion and falsification of the evidence was rejected.

Fourth, the appellant alleges a distortion of the clear sense of facts and evidence and errors in law by the General Court’s rejecting of the fourth complaint relating to the breach of the rights of the defence, of Article 4 of Commission Decision 1999/396, (1) and of Article 18 of the OLAF Instructions.

Fifth, the appellant alleges that the General Court erred in law by breaching the duty to state reasons and distorting evidence by rejecting the fifth complaint relating to the infringement of Article 11(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 (2) and of Article 13(5) of the Supervisory Committee’s Rules.

Sixth, the appellant alleges several errors in law and distortion of evidence in the General Court’s judgment in which the sixth complaint relating to the breach of the principle of the presumption of innocence, the infringement of Article 8 of Regulation No 1073/1999 and of Article 339 TFEU and the breach of the right to the protection of personal data was rejected.

By its seventh and final plea in law the appellant alleges a distortion of the clear sense of the application and of evidence and an error in law by the General Court’s concluding that the appellant had not established the existence of a moral damage.

(1) 1999/396/EC, ECSC, Euratom: Commission Decision of 2 June 1999 concerning the terms and conditions for internal investigations in relation to the prevention of fraud, corruption and any illegal activity detrimental to the Communities' interests (OJ 1999, L 149, p. 57).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (OJ 1999, L 136, p. 1).