EN
20.2.2023
Official Journal of the European Union
C 63/27
Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of the appellant’s privilege against self-incrimination during the inspection of 4 December 2019; Fourth plea in law, alleging an incorrect application or interpretation of Regulation No 883/2013 as to OLAF’s internal advisory and control mechanism and the appellant’s right to lodge a complaint; Fifth plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons and a contradictory reasoning as to the appellant’s right to be heard; Sixth plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons as regards the impartiality of OLAF’s Director-General; Seventh plea in law, alleging an infringement of, and contradictory reasoning as to the appellant’s rights of defense and in particular Article 9(1) Regulation No 883/2013 with regard to the sampling carried out by Croatian Customs upon OLAF’s request.
(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) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001, L 145, p. 43)
Appeal brought on 22 December 2022 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 12 October 2022 in Case T-502/19 Francesca v ECB (Case C-789/22 P) (2023/C 63/34) Language of the case: Italian Parties Appellant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, D. Triantafyllou, A. Nijenhuis, acting as Agents) Other parties to the proceedings: Francesca Corneli, European Central Bank
Form of order sought The appellant claims that the Court should: 1. set aside the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition), delivered on 12 October 2022 and of which the Commission was notified on the same day, in Case T-502/19, Francesca Corneli v European Central Bank; 2. dismiss the action at first instance as inadmissible and unfounded, and order the applicant to pay the costs at both instances; 3. in the alternative, set aside the judgment of the General Court and refer the case back to the General Court.
Grounds of appeal and main arguments In support of its appeal, the Commission raises five grounds.
By its first ground of appeal, the Commission submits that the General Court infringed Article 263 TFEU — finding incorrectly that the decisions at issue at first instance are of direct and individual concern to the applicant at first instance, and that she had a separate interest in bringing an action for the annulment of those decisions — and distorted the facts.