CJEU Case T-384/20 / Judgment
-
CJEU Case T-384/20 / Judgment
Key facts of the case:
Non-contractual liability – OLAF investigation – Press release – Processing of personal data – Presumption of innocence – Principle of good administration – Duty to act diligently – Confidentiality of OLAF investigations – Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals – Causal link – Damage
Outcome of the case:
On those grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (Third Chamber)
hereby:
- Orders the European Commission to pay OC EUR 50000;
- Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
-
Paragraphs referring to EU Charter
123. The applicant submits that OLAF blatantly infringed the right to good administration provided for in Article 41 of the Charter. She argues that that right confers rights on individuals through a set of mandatory rules or prohibitions.
...
126. As a preliminary point, it should be recalled that the principle of good administration does not, in itself, confer rights upon individuals except where it constitutes the expression of specific rights such as the right to have one’s affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time, the right to be heard, the right to have access to files, or the obligation to give reasons for decisions, for the purposes of Article 41 of the Charter (see judgment of 4 October 2006, Tillack v Commission, T‑193/04, EU:T:2006:292, paragraph 127 and the case-law cited). That is also the case of the duty to act with all necessary diligence, which is inherent to the principle of good administration and obliges the relevant institution to examine carefully and impartially all the relevant facts of the case (judgments of 16 December 2008, Masdar (UK) v Commission, C‑47/07 P, EU:C:2008:726, paragraph 91, and of 6 June 2019, Dalli v Commission, T‑399/17, not published, EU:T:2019:384, paragraph 200).
...
145. As regards the reference to the recommendations made by OLAF to the national authorities, it must be pointed out that the alleged breach of the principle of confidentiality of investigations is examined here in so far as it is raised in connection with the principle of good administration, guaranteed by Article 41 of the Charter, and not in connection with the principle of the presumption of innocence, since that complaint has already been examined, inter alia, in paragraph 92 above.
...
158. Accordingly, it must be held that OLAF failed to fulfil its obligation of neutrality and impartiality under Article 10(5) of Regulation No 883/2013 and guaranteed in Article 41(1) of the Charter.
159. In the light of all of the foregoing, it must be held that OLAF infringed the duty to act diligently and the obligation of neutrality and impartiality, guaranteed in Article 41 of the Charter, by publishing the press release at issue.
160. In order to determine whether the breach of OLAF’s duty to act diligently and the obligation of neutrality and impartiality under Article 10(5) of Regulation No 883/2013, both of which are guaranteed in Article 41(1) of the Charter, constitutes a sufficiently serious breach, it is necessary to determine the margin of discretion available to OLAF.
...
170. In any event, and assuming that OLAF has a margin of discretion available to it, it must be held that using the term ‘fraud’ in the press release at issue constitutes a grave and manifest infringement of the obligation of neutrality and impartiality under Article 10(5) of Regulation No 883/2013 and guaranteed in Article 41(1) of the Charter.
...
173. It follows from all of the foregoing, first, that, by publishing the press release at issue, OLAF unlawfully processed the applicant’s personal data and thus committed a sufficiently serious breach of Article 4(1)(a) and (b), Article 5(1)(a) and Article 6(c) to (e) of Regulation 2018/1725. Second, OLAF committed a sufficiently serious breach of the principle of the presumption of innocence guaranteed in Article 9(1) of Regulation No 883/2013 and Article 10(5) of that regulation. Third, OLAF committed a sufficiently serious breach of its duty to act diligently and of its obligation of neutrality and impartiality under Article 10(5) of Regulation No 883/2013, both guaranteed in Article 41(1) of the Charter.
-
Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)