Case T-793/25: Action brought on 19 November 2025 – OD v Eurojust
Date: 2025-11-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, European official, access to EU information, harassment at work, indemnification, legal aid, proof, right to justice, rights of the defence, staff regulations (EU)








C_202600656EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2026/656


9.2.2026






Action brought on 19 November 2025 – OD v Eurojust


(Case T-793/25)

(C/2026/656)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: OD (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul the decision of 15 January 2025 which rejects the request for assistance made under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union;










—


annul in so far as is necessary, in that it supplements or amends the decision of 15 January 2025, the express decision rejecting the complaint of 6 August 2025 notified on the following 13 August;










—


order Eurojust to compensate the applicant for the non-material damage resulting from the negligence and failures of the administration in the treatment of the request for assistance, assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 40 000;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law.
As regards the challenge against the decision rejecting the applicant’s request for assistance with a view to the initiation of an investigation for misconduct and harassment:






1.


First plea in law, relating to the reference made by Eurojust to the facts that were subject of an investigation by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and the findings which Eurojust seeks to draw from that investigation.






—


The applicant puts forward that Eurojust incorrectly conflated the OLAF investigation with the administrative investigation which an administration must carry out on the basis of a complaint/request for assistance, infringed the obligation of transparency and the need to provide a legible and adequate statement of reasons, infringed the right of staff to be heard before adopting as significant a decision to take no further action with regard to a complaint, that it acted in an arbitrary manner and, lastly, infringed the duty to provide assistance by removing several of the facts which were set out chronologically by the applicant in her request for assistance.










—


The applicant also raises the infringement of the rights of the defence, the right to be heard in an effective manner on the basis of a complete file and full information, the right of access to a fair procedure and the principle of transparency in order to prevent arbitrariness or abuse being committed.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging a failure to communicate the information necessary for the purpose of determining the impartiality of the various parties responsible for the applicant’s file, in the context of managing the OLAF report.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the duties of transparency, impartiality, neutrality and objectivity.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging the defendant erred in law by infringing the obligations arising from Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), and in particular by infringing the rules applicable to the burden of proof and the level of prima facie evidence required from a complainant. The applicant also raises the manifest error of assessment of the facts submitted in the complaint.










5.


Fifth error in law, alleging the failure by Eurojust to examine the poor administration overall criticised by the applicant and the infringement of the principle of good administration that was committed.




As regards the rejection of the request for authorisation in respect of adducing the documents in the context of a criminal complaint:






1.


First plea in law, alleging, (i) the infringement of Article 19 of the Staff Regulations, (ii) the lack of a valid basis for refusal, (iii) the infringement of the Treaties and in particular the division of competences between the European Union and the Member States regarding the assessment of the legitimacy of national prosecutions and the basis of a civil action and, (iv) the infringement of the duty of loyal cooperation with the Member States.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging the failure to state reasons in respect of the interest justifying the refusal to grant the applicant the authorisation to make use, before the national authorities, of the information and documents to which her request made reference.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/656/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)