Case T-169/05: Action brought on 20 April 2005 by Jean-Louis Giraudy against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2005-07-09
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Commission Delegation, European Commission, France, action for annulment (EU), damage, dissemination of information, fraud against the EU, indemnification, reassignment, rights of the defence

9.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/29

In support of its action the applicant submits, first, that the
Commission made several errors in law in attributing the appli-
cant's practices, the materiality and classification of which are
not disputed, to Elf Aquitaine. The Commission thus misinter-
preted the rules governing a parent company's liability for prac-
tices carried out by a subsidiary in making a de facto irrebut-
table presumption of accountability deriving from its majority
shareholding in its subsidiary and consequently, in not showing
how the parent company was actually involved in the practices
in question. According to the applicant,
irrebuttable
presumption infringes the principle of legal and commercial
autonomy of the subsidiary, the principle of personal liability
for breaches of competition law and the principle of non-discri-
mination between undertakings on the basis of their legal orga-
nisation. Moreover, the applicant claims that the Commission
did not respect the essential procedural requirements in so far
as no reasons were given at all for applying the irrebuttable
presumption.

this

Second, the applicant submits that the fine imposed was exces-
sive, disproportionate and discriminatory. In support of this
submission it pleads infringement of the proportionality prin-
ciple in determining the initial amount of the fine, in deter-
mining the factor applied to make the fine a sufficient deterrent
and in determining the multiplying factor based on the dura-
tion of the breach.

In the alternative, the applicant submits that should Elf Aqui-
taine not be exonerated, its pleas regarding infringement of the
proportionality principle are still well-founded. In addition, the
applicant submits that the Commission took Arkema's turnover
into account twice in its method of calculation, thus imposing
a double penalty for the same fact.

Action brought on 20 April 2005 by Jean-Louis Giraudy
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-169/05)

(2005/C 171/48)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the

European Communities on 20 April 2005 by Jean-Louis
Giraudy, residing in Paris, represented by Dominique Voillemot,
lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission's decision of 21 February 2005 inas-
much as it does not acknowledge the faults of the Press D-
G and rejects his complaint;

— declare that those faults have caused actual and quantifiable
damage, and that there is a causal link between those faults
and the damage;

— declare lawful, in consequence, financial compensation for
the damage suffered by the applicant and fix the compensa-
tion for the non-material damage suffered at the sum of
EUR 500 000;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

At the material time, the applicant was Head of the Commis-
sion's Office in France. As a result of allegations made against
him concerning supposed irregularities adversely affecting the
European Union's budget, the European Anti-Fraud Office (the
OLAF) carried out an operation at the headquarters of the
Commission's Office on 18 November 2002. The next day the
applicant was transferred to Brussels and forbidden all contact
within the Commission or without.

The applicant also claims that a press release issued by the
Commission on 21 November 2002 and widely circulated gave
rise to considerable publicity unfavourable to him in the media.
According to the applicant, the OLAF's report of 6 May 2003
concluded that the allegations against him were groundless.

By this action the applicant seeks to obtain compensation for
the damage caused him by those acts. In support of his action
he claims that he was transferred unlawfully, without justifica-
tion and in breach of the presumption of innocence. He also
claims that the Commission's spokesman did not observe the
confidential nature of the inquiry and made public statements
liable to damage his reputation. Finally, he claims that certain
allegations concerning him were made by the Director General
of the Press Directorate-General, of the flimsiness of which the
latter must have been aware.