CELEX: C2003/112/82
Language: en
Date: 2003-05-10 00:00:00
Title: Case T-96/03: Action brought on 10 March 2003 by Manel Camós Grau against the Commission of the European Communities

C 112/44             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                       10.5.2003
—    Manifest error of assessment as regards the Community               —     order the Commission to pay him by way of compen-
     case-law and rules on the requirement laid down in                        sation for non-material damage provisionally assessed, ex
     Article 87(1) of the Treaty that aid should be granted by                 aequo et bono, at EUR 10 000;
     the State or through State resources. It is asserted in this
     respect that nothing in Community case-law or in the
     legislation on State aid suggests that it is necessary that         —     order the Commission to pay the applicant compensation
     the resources to which the domestic authorities waive                     for damage to his career, provisionally, of EUR 1;
     their right should be formally recognised in the State
     budget.                                                             —     order the Commission to reimburse the expenses incurred
                                                                               by the applicant in preparing his defence in the context
—    Breach of the principle of sound administration, since the                of the inquiry and his administrative complaint against
     Commission did not raise objections to the disputed                       the decision of 17 May 2002;
     measure or initiate the formal investigation procedure
     laid down in Article 88(2) EC.                                      —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
The applicants also allege that the Commission failed to
comply with the obligation to state reasons.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The applicant is an official of the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities. Between 1993 and 1997, he assisted his
                                                                         immediate superior who was a member of the Executive
                                                                         Committee of the Institute for European-Latin American
                                                                         Relations (IRELA). When an internal inquiry was opened by
                                                                         the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF) into the IRELA, the
Action brought on 10 March 2003 by Manel Camós Grau
                                                                         applicant was informed that it was possible that he too was
  against the Commission of the European Communities                     implicated in financial irregularities. The applicant asked the
                                                                         director of OLAF to find out as soon as possible whether there
                                                                         was any possible conflict of interest with regard to one of the
                        (Case T-96/03)                                   investigators and if appropriate to take the necessary steps to
                                                                         guarantee the objectivity of the inquiry. By the contested
                                                                         decision, the director of OLAF decided to remove from
                       (2003/C 112/82)                                   the inquiry the investigator concerned but left standing
                                                                         investigative measures and decisions proposed and adopted by
                                                                         him or to which he contributed.
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         In support of his claims, the applicant relies on four pleas in
                                                                         law:
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               —     Infringement of Article 25(2) of the Staff Regulations
European Communities on 10 March 2003 by Manel Camós                           inasmuch as the contested decision was not notified to
Grau, residing in Brussels, represented by Marc-Albert Lucas,                  him and provides an inadequate statement of reasons;
lawyer.
                                                                         —     Breach of the duty to provide evidence of the proper
                                                                               conduct of the inquiry;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—    annul the OLAF decision of 17 May 2002 removing one                 —     Manifest error of assessment in that the reason for the
                                                                               contested decision appears to be that the investigator
     of the investigators from the inquiry by the Office into
     the IRELA inasmuch as it leaves standing investigative                    concerned did not participate either in the monitoring or
     measures and decisions on its conduct adopted by the                      the handling of the case in question;
     investigator or to which he contributed, without re-
     examining or annulling them or requiring new inquiries;             —     Breach of the principle that inquiries should be fair and
                                                                               impartial.
—    annul the OLAF decision of 29 November 2002 implicitly
     rejecting the applicant’s administrative complaint of
     29 July 2002 against the decision of 17 May 2002;