Case T-392/25: Action brought on 18 June 2025 – Galić and Others v Commission
Date: 2025-06-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, activity report, confidentiality, damage, data protection, indemnification, interest, personal data, presumption of innocence, retroactivity of a law








C_202504803EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4803


8.9.2025






Action brought on 18 June 2025 – Galić and Others v Commission


(Case T-392/25)

(C/2025/4803)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Josip Galić (Zagreb, Croatia), Galić d.o.o. za proizvodnju i usluge (Kutjevo, Croatia), Experta grupa d.o.o. za trgovinu, usluge i turistička agencija (Požega, Croatia) (represented by: M. Brand, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:






—


order the defendant to pay to the first applicant, Josip GALIĆ, the sum of EUR 38 310 995,00, together with interest as set out in the application;










—


order the defendant to pay to the second applicant, Galić d.o.o., the sum of EUR 5 960 537,48, together with interest as set out in the application;










—


order the defendant to pay to the third applicant, Experta grupa d.o.o., the sum of EUR 3 382 776,77, together with interest as set out in the application;










—


declare that the defendant is liable vis-à-vis each of the applicants for all as yet unknown damage caused unlawfully and wrongfully to each applicant as a result of the unlawful and grossly negligent conduct of OLAF investigation OC/2019/0464/A4 and/or the publication of the OLAF Report 2020 (see https://anti-fraud.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-12/olaf_report_2020_en.pdf);










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed the procedural guarantees under Article 9 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council. (1)











—


OLAF failed to take account of evidence for the applicants and did not act objectively and impartially, causing damage. Had the procedure been conducted objectively, it would have had to be discontinued. The applicants would not have been referred to in the OLAF annual report. The damage would thus not have arisen.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed the fundamental right to good administration.










—


Regarding the grounds for this plea, reference is made to the first plea in law.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed the principle of impartiality.










—


OLAF infringed the applicants’ rights, in that a manifestly biased official failed to recuse himself and, instead, decided the matter to their detriment.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed the right to discontinuance.










—


OLAF failed to take account of exculpatory evidence even though, had there been a lawful analysis of the legal position, the procedure would have had to be discontinued. All damage would have been avoided if OLAF had respected the fundamental right that was infringed.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed the principle of non-retroactivity.










—


OLAF based the decision on national legislation that was enacted only after the fact and that was not applicable to the facts. The applicants acted lawfully according to the legislation in force at the material time. Consequently, the procedure should have been discontinued.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council. (2)











—


When publishing the 2020 annual report, OLAF failed to protect the personal data of the first and second applicants, so that the applicants were readily identifiable and the media reported that they had committed a fraud, which gave rise to significant consequences and damage.










7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to respect confidentiality and data protection in accordance with Article 10 of Regulation No 883/2013.










—


Regarding the grounds for this plea, reference is made to the sixth plea in law.










8.


Eighth plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed the principle of the presumption of innocence.










—


OLAF characterised the applicants as fraudsters in the 2020 annual report, thereby infringing the fundamental right to the presumption of innocence. The media adopted and published the terminology used in the OLAF annual report, resulting in the damage to the applicants at issue here.






(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) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC (OJ 2018 L 295, p. 39).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4803/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)