Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62022TN0730

    Case T-730/22: Action brought on 18 November 2022 — LG and Others v Commission

    OJ C 35, 30.1.2023, p. 71–71 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    30.1.2023   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 35/71

    Action brought on 18 November 2022 — LG and Others v Commission

    (Case T-730/22)

    (2023/C 35/92)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicants: LG and seven other applicants (represented by: A. Sigal and M. Teder, lawyers)

    Defendant: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    The applicants claim that the Court should:

    —

    declare that the defendant has acted unlawfully under Article 9(4) of the Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013, (1) as amended by Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2223, (2) by not sending the applicants reasonably detailed and clear fact statements that would clarify whether and how the applicants’ actions have, in OLAF’s views, harmed the interests of the European Union, and not providing the applicants an additional opportunity to comment on such fact statements; and

    —

    order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

    1.

    First plea in law, alleging that OLAF has failed to act by not providing the applicants, who have been named as persons concerned in an OLAF investigation, a meaningful opportunity to comment on the facts concerning them, in accordance with Article 9(4) and Article 9(b)(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013, as amended by Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2223.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging that OLAF has failed to act in accordance with the principle of good administration by not disclosing, with the statement of facts provided to the applicants, the preliminary allegations against the applicants that would allow them to assess the relevance of the stated facts and to comment on such facts.

    (1)  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).

    (2)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2223 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 December 2020 amending Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013, as regards cooperation with the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and the effectiveness of the European Anti-Fraud Office investigations (OJ 2020 L 437, p. 49).

    Top