CELEX: 62016TN0251
Language: en
Date: 2016-05-20 00:00:00
Title: Case T-251/16: Action brought on 20 May 2016 — Director-General of the European Anti-Fraud Office v Commission

18.7.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 260/45
            
         Action brought on 20 May 2016 — Director-General of the European Anti-Fraud Office v Commission
   (Case T-251/16)
   (2016/C 260/56)
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Director-General of the European Anti-Fraud Office (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Jelínek, staff member, assisted by G.M. Roberti and I. Perego, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul Decision C(2016)1449 final of the European Commission of 2 March 2016 concerning an application for waiver of immunity, with the exception of Article 1(2);
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law: infringements of law and manifest errors of assessment committed by the European Commission. The contested decision does not comply with the legal requirements governing waiver of immunity from legal proceedings of the Director-General of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and is based on a manifestly erroneous reading of the documents in the case-file. Moreover, the contested decision did not correctly assess the EU’s interest and compromises the independence of the Director-General of OLAF.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law: infringements of law and distortion of the decision-making process.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law: infringement of the obligation to state reasons.
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Fourth plea in law: infringement of the principle of sincere cooperation and of procedural guarantees.