EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62020TN0735
Case T-735/20: Action brought on 15 December 2020 — Planistat Europe and Charlot v Commission
Case T-735/20: Action brought on 15 December 2020 — Planistat Europe and Charlot v Commission
Case T-735/20: Action brought on 15 December 2020 — Planistat Europe and Charlot v Commission
IO C 53, 15.2.2021, p. 49–50
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
15.2.2021 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 53/49 |
Action brought on 15 December 2020 — Planistat Europe and Charlot v Commission
(Case T-735/20)
(2021/C 53/65)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicants: Planistat Europe (Paris, France), Hervé-Patrick Charlot (Paris) (represented by: F. Martin Laprade, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should:
— |
declare that the European Commission is non-contractually liable under the provisions of Article 340 TFEU:
|
and consequently,
— |
order the European Commission to pay the sum of EUR 150 000 in respect of the non-material damage suffered by Hervé-Patrick Charlot; |
— |
order the European Commission to pay the sum of EUR 11 600 000 in respect of the material damage suffered by the applicants; |
— |
order the European Commission to reimburse the total costs of the proceedings incurred by the company Planistat and Hervé-Patrick Charlot. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas of law.
1. |
First plea, alleging infringement of the duty of care and of the right to good administration based on false accusations made by the Anti-fraud office (OLAF) and the European Commission against the applicants, whose innocence has been definitively confirmed on 16 June 2016 by the French Court of Cassation. In that regard, the applicants claim that:
|
2. |
Second plea, alleging infringement of the right to good administration and infringement of the rights of defence and of the principle of the presumption of innocence based on the culpably thoughtless conduct displayed by OLAF in its false accusations of the applicants before the French authorities, carried out by letter of 19 March 2003. The applicants take the view in that regard that:
|
3. |
Third plea, alleging infringement of the obligation of confidentiality with regard to personal data, infringement of the right to good administration and of the principle of the presumption of innocence based on ‘leaks’ which came from OLAF with regard to the substance of its false accusations of 19 March 2003. In that regard, the applicants take the view that:
|
4. |
Fourth plea, alleging infringement of the right to good administration, as well as of the principle of the presumption of innocence on the basis of the submission of a complaint together with an application to be joined as a civil party, and of the European Commission’s public communication in July 2003. The applicants claim that:
|