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 62016TN0251

    Case T-251/16: Action brought on 20 May 2016 — Director-General of the European Anti-Fraud Office v Commission

    IO C 260, 18.7.2016, p. 45–46 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    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.
    Top