Case C-826/25 P: Appeal brought on 10 December 2025 by OC against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 1 October 2025 in Case T-384/20 RENV, OC v Commission
Date: 2025-12-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, data protection, data-processing law, indemnification, independence of the judiciary, personal data, proof, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_202600637EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2026/637


9.2.2026






Appeal brought on 10 December 2025 by OC against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 1 October 2025 in Case T-384/20 RENV, OC v Commission


(Case C-826/25 P)

(C/2026/637)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Appellant: OC (represented by: C. Däuble, P. Hense, T. Herbrich, dikigoroi)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of the General Court of 1 October 2025 in Case T-384/20 RENV, in so far as it rejects the claim for compensation, and order the respondent to pay compensation for non-material damage in the amount of EUR 1 050 000;










—


in the alternative, set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court of 1 October 2025 in Case T-384/20 RENV and order the respondent to pay compensation for non-material damage in the amount of EUR 1 100 000;










—


order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant raises the following seven grounds:






1.


First ground of appeal: failure to reopen the oral part of the procedure
The General Court erred in law when it refused to reopen the oral part of the procedure, even though the appellant had adduced evidence of crucial importance for the decision and of the calculation of the compensation owed by the respondent, namely a criminal judgment from Greece in which she had been acquitted of all criminal charges. Consequently, in applying Article 113(2)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the General Court failed to take proper account of the significance of the evidence for the decision and therefore infringed the principle of a fair trial laid down in the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter.










2.


Second ground of appeal: unlawful interpretation and application of Article 65 of Regulation 2018/1725, (1) read in conjunction with the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU, in relation to the determination of the amount of the compensation in respect of damage to honour and reputation
The General Court applied incorrectly Article 65 of Regulation 2018/1725, read in conjunction with the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU, disregarding the principles of the right to compensation and the relevant case-law of the General Court, ignoring similar cases in the past with higher amounts of compensation and, consequently, awarding an amount of compensation for the damage to the appellant’s honour and professional reputation that was clearly too low.










3.


Third ground of appeal: incorrect interpretation and application of Article 65 of Regulation 2018/1725, read in conjunction with the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU, in relation to the determination of the amount of the compensation in respect of the loss of a professorship
The General Court applied incorrectly Article 65 of Regulation 2018/1725, read in conjunction with the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU, disregarding the principles of the right to compensation and the relevant case-law of the General Court, and, as a result, awarded the appellant compensation that was clearly too low in relation to the [damage resulting from the] established withdrawal of the offer of a professorship at Emby-Riddle Aeronautical University.










4.


Fourth ground of appeal: incorrect application of Article 65 of Regulation 2018/1725, read in conjunction with the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU, due to an incorrect assessment of the causal link with regard to the damage to health
The General Court was wrong to find that, apart from the OLAF press release at issue, there are other causes of the damage to the appellant’s health. The Court took those factors into account in its assessment of the causal link and the amount of compensation, thereby applying incorrectly Article 65 of Regulation 2018/1725, read in conjunction with the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU. The error lies either in the understanding of the finding of a causal link or in the allocation of the burden of proof.










5.


Fifth ground of appeal: distortion of the facts due to the failure to take into account evidence relevant to the decision
The General Court erred in law by failing to take into account various items of evidence duly submitted by the appellant concerning the damage to her professional reputation caused by the OLAF press release, even though it is partly referred to expressly in the corresponding statement of facts. The evidence clearly and obviously shows a situation different from the unilateral findings of the General Court, to the detriment of the appellant.










6.


Sixth ground of appeal: infringement of the obligation to state reasons under Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, Article 117 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court and Article 47 of the Charter as regards the amount claimed
The General Court erred in law when it infringed its obligation to state reasons for its decision, by imposing an overall amount without distinguishing between the various types of damage which it found that the appellant had suffered or setting out any criteria or reasons for the calculation of that overall amount and its composition in relation to the various types of damage.










7.


Seventh ground of appeal: breach of the right to be heard under the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter
The Court committed a procedural error by failing to rule on all the claims in the action, thereby infringing the appellant’s right to a fair hearing and to a lawful court under the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter.






(1)  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/2026/637/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)