Case T-200/25: Action brought on 13 March 2025 – Giftrans and Giurgiuman v Commission
Date: 2025-03-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, European Public Prosecutor's Office, criminal procedure, criminal proceedings, legal aid, offence, presumption of innocence, right to information, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_202503538EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/3538


7.7.2025






Action brought on 13 March 2025 – Giftrans and Giurgiuman v Commission


(Case T-200/25)

(C/2025/3538)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Giftrans SRL (Valea Drăganului, Romania), Florin Giurgiuman (Valea Drăganului, Romania) (represented by: V. Costa Ramos and A. Şandru, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the final report of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) signed on 22 and 25 March 2024 in case OLAF OC/2022/1031/A5 and used in investigation No. I000210/2021 of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO).





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the support provided by OLAF to the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) in the scope of a complementary investigation under Article 101(3)(c) of Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 (1) and Article 12f(1) Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) should be strictly administrative and carry out complementary functions. OLAF must not effectively be transformed into a criminal investigative body tasked by the EPPO with collecting evidence later used in the ongoing criminal procedure, which shares the exact same subject matter as the administrative investigation conducted by OLAF. The evidence collected by OLAF allowed the EPPO to circumvent safeguards that apply in criminal proceedings and are meant to protect the applicants’ rights in a criminal case.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a breach of Articles 9(1), 9(2) and 9(4) of Regulation No 883/2013 and a violation of the rights of defence of the applicants in the investigations, including the right against self-incrimination and the respect of the presumption of innocence, also established in Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’). The applicants were not informed that they were suspected or accused of a criminal offence or that the inspection was being carried out at the request of the EPPO for an ongoing case. They were not informed properly of their right against self-incrimination, the procedure was not suspended from the moment Mr. Giurgiuman self-incriminated, and Mr. Giurgiuman was obliged to make incriminating statements and to provide incriminating information and documents under a duty to cooperate. The right to make observations before the final OLAF report was drawn up was also not granted to Mr Giurgiuman or GIFTRANS SRL, at the request of the European Delegated Prosecutor to defer such a right.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging a breach of the procedural guarantees established in Chapter VI of Regulation 2017/1939, applicable via Article 12e(3) of Regulation No 883/2013, notably Article 41(1) and (2)(b), (c) and (d), Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) (Articles 3 and 6), Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (4) (Article 3) and 2016/343/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (5) (Article 7) and Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter. The applicants claim that the acts conducted by OLAF were clearly acts conducted for the purpose of a pending EPPO investigation, without the procedural guarantees for suspects and accused persons being respected. At no stage did OLAF inform Mr. Giurgiuman or GIFTRANS SRL that they were suspected or accused in a criminal case or informed them on their rights, notably the right on information on rights and charges, the right to legal assistance and the broad right against self-incrimination, and breached their right against self-incrimination obliging Mr. Giurgiuman to make incriminating statements and to provide incriminating information and documents under a duty to cooperate.






(1)  Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017 implementing enhanced cooperation for the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO Regulation) (OJ 2017, L 283, p. 1).

(2)  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).

(3)  Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings (OJ 2012 L 142, p. 1).

(4)  Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings, and on the right to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and to communicate with third persons and with consular authorities while deprived of liberty (OJ 2013 L 294, p. 1).

(5)  Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings (OJ 2016 L 65, p. 1).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3538/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)