Case T-611/25: Action brought on 9 September 2025 – UU v Commission
Date: 2025-09-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, abuse of power, discretionary power, equal treatment, indemnification, member of the Court of Justice (EU), principle of proportionality, right to justice, staff regulations (EU), whistleblowing








C_202505855EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5855


10.11.2025






Action brought on 9 September 2025 – UU v Commission


(Case T-611/25)

(C/2025/5855)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: UU (represented by: S. Makoumbou, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Director-General of OLAF of 4 June 2025, rejecting the applicant’s administrative complaint of 8 January 2025 (‘the first contested decision’);










—


annul the decision of the Director-General of OLAF of 8 November 2024 rejecting the applicant’s claim for compensation of 12 July 2024, that the first contested decision confirms (‘the second contested decision’);










—


grant compensation for the material and non-material harm to be determined on equitable principles and provisionally estimated by the applicant at EUR 50 000
               
or










—


re-open the investigation with regard to [confidential] (1) and delete from the wording of the findings of the investigation report with regard to the applicant, as requested in point 65 of her complaint, the following words:

                  ‘Therefore, despite that giving the interview to […] by [confidential] technically transgressed Articles 11 and 12 of the Staff Regulations’;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.






1.


The first plea alleges an error of law and a manifest error of assessment concerning the inadmissibility of the application for compensation in kind.






—


The applicant argues that the defendant commits a manifest error of assessment by holding inadmissible an application for compensation in kind, such as the partial amendment of the wording of the findings of an investigation report, on account of the fact that the latter cannot be challenged or the completion of an investigation initially opened and then closed, due to the absence of a right to have an OLAF investigation opened, by OLAF with regard to an ex-Member of the General Court of the European Union. The applicant, first, does not seek the annulment of the investigation report but compensation, and proposes voluntary amendment by OLAF as a means of compensation in kind for the non-material harm allegedly suffered. Secondly, the further investigation sought constitutes an integral part of the investigation conducted for 5 years against her, without the initial facts having been investigated.














2.


The second plea in law alleges an error of law in the application of the conditions for non-contractual liability to be incurred.






—


The applicant claims that a decision of OLAF, adopted on the basis of Article 90a of the Staff Regulations of Officials and concerning an application for compensation in relation to harm suffered on account of an OLAF investigation conducted against a member of staff of the institutions on the grounds of professional misconduct must be regarded as falling within the scope of proceedings concerning the civil service (Article 270 TFEU) and must therefore follow the conditions for non-contractual liability to be incurred provided for by the case-law in that field.














3.


The third plea alleges the manifest failure to comply with the discretionary power conferred on the Director-General, the failure to comply with the independence of OLAF and the infringement of Articles 1(4) and 17(3) of 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 and abuse of powers – Plea of illegality of the internal decision of the Court of 12 July 2011.






—


According to the applicant, delimiting the scope of an investigation concerning the disclosure to the press by a staff member of an institution, who is a whistleblower, of compromising information concerning an ex-Member of an institution, concerning violence suffered, without investigating the facts, fails to have regard to the wide discretion of the Director-General of OLAF. The applicant submits, in that regard, that the decision to close the investigation into those acts of violence, as a result of the position adopted by the Court of Justice according to which, by virtue of the internal decision of the Court of 12 July 2011 on the conditions and procedure for internal investigations into combating fraud, corruption and any illegal activity which may harm the interests of the European Union, OLAF does not have power to investigate serious infringements of obligations of Member of the Court which do not have financial consequences on the budget, fails to have regard to the sphere of competence and the independence of the Director-General of OLAF and infringes Articles 1(4) and 17(3) of Regulation No 883/2013. That internal decision of the Court of Justice is illegal inasmuch as it derogates from Regulation No 883/2013, without any other legal basis.














4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 21 and 23 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, breach of the principle of non-discrimination and infringement of the Istanbul Convention and a failure to comply with the protection of whistleblowers.






—


The applicant argues that the contested decisions, in the light of the factual context of the present case, result in extremely serious discrimination against the applicant, in breach of Articles 21 and 23 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, of the third indent of Article 18(3), Article 30 and Article 49 of the Istanbul Convention and of the provisions on the protection of whistleblowers (Article 22a of the Staff Regulations).














5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and breach of the principles of fair treatment, impartiality, good administration and of the duty of due care.






—


The applicant submits that an investigation which was truncated as to its object, the taking into account of an act which could not derogate from the regulatory framework establishing OLAF’s powers, the invasive procedures and the excessive duration of such an investigation infringe the principles of good administration, impartiality, fair treatment and the duty of due care.














6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of proportionality and abuse of powers.






—


The applicant submits that the initiation, the manner of the conduct of and the duration of the investigation at issue were disproportionate to the object of the investigation, to the cooperation provided by the applicant, to the fact that the Court of Justice had ruled out the possibility of initiating disciplinary proceedings in respect of the facts under investigation, and to the extremely invasive and long-lasting nature of the measures of inquiry put in place. Thus, the investigation as a whole acquired a punitive character with regard to the applicant, which went beyond OLAF’s sphere of competence and the purpose for which investigative powers are granted to OLAF.










(1)  Confidential information redacted.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5855/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)