12.9.2009

Official Journal of the European Union

C 220/35

—

(Case T-261/09 P)

2009/C 220/75

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by J. Currall and J.-P. Keppenne, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Antonello Violetti (Cittiglio, Italy), Nadine Schmit (Ispra, Italy), Council of the European Union, Anna Bassi Perucchini (Reno di Leggiuno, Italy), Marco Basso (Varano Borghi, Italy), Ernesto Brognieri (Barasso, Italy), Sergio Brusorio (Sesto Calende, Italy), Natale Cao (Ispra), Renato Cazzaniga (Ispra), Elvidio Flammini (Varese, Italy), Luigi Magistri (Ispra), Reginella Molinari Canale (Ispra), Giuseppe Morelli (Besozzo, Italy), Nadia Valentini (Varese) and Giuseppe Zara (Ispra)

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

—set aside the judgment of 28 April 2009 in Joined Cases F-5/05 and F-7/05 Violetti and Others v Commission, in so far as it declared admissible the actions for annulment of the decision of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) to communicate certain information to the Italian authorities;

—adjudicate the present cases itself, declaring the actions brought before the Civil Service Tribunal to be inadmissible;

—order the respondents to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present appeal, the Commission seeks to have set aside the judgment of 28 April 2009 in Joined Cases F-5/05 and F-7/05 Violetti and Others v Commission, by which the Civil Service Tribunal annulled OLAF’s decision to communicate information concerning the respondents to the Italian judicial authorities and ordered the Commission to pay each of the respondents the sum of EUR 3 000 by way of damages.

In support of its appeal, the Commission relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 90a of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities, in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal was in breach of Community law and proceeded on the basis of unsound grounds in disregarding the established case-law to the effect that actes préparatoires — such as the opening of an OLAF investigation, OLAF’s final report and the commencement of disciplinary proceedings — are not acts which have adverse effects for the purposes of providing grounds of complaint. The Commission argues that this case-law can be transposed to Article 90a of the Staff Regulations as regards the possibility of submitting a complaint against acts of OLAF.

—