Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/30

Action brought on 28 February 2018 — De Esteban Alonso v Commission

(Case T-138/18)

(2018/C 190/53)

Language of the case: French


Applicant: Fernando De Esteban Alonso (Saint-Martin-de-Seignanx, France) (represented by: C. Huglo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

Order OLAF to produce in full and complete form the note of 19 March 2003 produced in the case of Franchet and Byk v Commission (T-48/05) before the General Court of the European Union;

Order the European Commission to pay the sum of EUR 1 102 291,68 (one million one hundred and two thousand two hundred and ninety-one euros and sixty-eight cents) as compensation for the losses suffered, to be adjusted if necessary, divided as follows:

in respect of the non-material harm suffered by reason of never having [been] heard as regards the facts which gave rise to the charges against him, the sum of EUR 60 000;

in respect of the losses suffered as a result of the unlawful, unjustified and disproportionate conduct of the European Commission in pursuing procedures without any factual ground or material element:

the sum of EUR 39 293,38 in respect of material harm, namely lawyers’ fees;

the sum of EUR 872,74 in respect of material harm, namely travel expenses;

the sum of EUR 500 000 in respect of non-material harm, namely the undeniable damage caused to his reputation and honour;

the sum of EUR 500 000 as compensation for the physical and mental harm adversely affecting his state of health;

the sum of EUR 2 125,56 in respect of material harm, namely examination and medical costs.

Order the European Commission to pay the sum of EUR 3 000 in respect of non-recoverable costs and all the costs of the action, to be adjusted if necessary.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging the unlawfulness of the European Commission’s conduct and its serious wrongdoing, in that it failed to observe, firstly, the principle of sound administration; secondly, the duty of care and, thirdly, the principles of the rights of the defence by infringing Articles 41 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.