EU Normal Court docket guidelines for the primary time on monetary penalties of alleged irregularities relating to a former member of the EU Court docket of Auditors – Cyber Tech

 

 

Alessandro Nato* and Camilla Ramotti**

 

*Affiliate Professor in European Union legislation, College
of Teramo

**Postdoctoral Analysis Fellow in Administrative Legislation,
Luiss Guido Carli, Rome

 

Picture credit score: Cedric, by way of Wikimedia
Commons

 

 

1.     Introduction

 

The position of EU establishments and officers in managing and defending
Union funds stays a comparatively underexplored space inside European authorized
scholarship. Because of this, the current submit will tackle this particular
situation, investigating case-law that evaluates how successfully EU establishments
deal with supranational public funds.

 

On
September 11^th, 2024, in its Judgment
in Case T-386/19, CQ v Court docket of Auditors, the Normal
Court docket of the European Union partially annulled a call regarding CQ, a
former Member of the European
Court docket of Auditors (ECA).

 

The
dispute arose from an motion
introduced by CQ in opposition to the ECA on June 24^th, 2019,
by which the applicant requested, in essence, that the Court docket: (i) declare the
motion admissible and well-founded; (ii) annul the choice of the Secretary
Normal of the Court docket of Auditors of April 11^th, 2019, which
categorised the sum of € 153,407.58 as an undue fee and order the restoration
of that quantity, plus curiosity at a price of three.5% from Could 31^st, 2019.

 

CQ
had served as a Member of the Court docket of Auditors from March 1^st, 2006
till April 30^th, 2018, finishing two phrases of workplace. Previous to his
appointment, CQ had held varied political roles within the Kingdom of Belgium
courting again to the Eighties. Throughout his tenure on the Court docket, he was assigned to
the part chargeable for auditing EU expenditure associated to exterior
relations, enlargement, and humanitarian help.

 

In
2016, the Court docket of Auditors acquired data relating to a number of severe
irregularities allegedly dedicated by CQ, who was knowledgeable of those allegations
in July 2016, which he has constantly denied.

 

In
October 2016, the Secretary-Normal of the Court docket of Auditors referred the
matter to the European Anti-Fraud Workplace (OLAF), regarding actions by CQ
that had led to potential undue expenditure being charged to the EU funds.
OLAF subsequently determined to provoke an investigation and, in March 2017, the
Director-Normal of OLAF formally notified the President of the Court docket of
Auditors of the opening of an investigation into potential irregularities
involving CQ. These included allegations of misuse of the Court docket’s sources,
breaches of relevant guidelines regarding official missions, and issues
affecting the monetary pursuits of the Union.

 

Following
a number of exchanges of data and paperwork between OLAF and CQ, the Court docket
of Auditors acquired OLAF’s remaining report, which concluded that CQ had
misappropriated sources of the Court docket in reference to actions unrelated
to his official duties. The report discovered that CQ had improperly used gas
playing cards, misused the insurance coverage coverage for his official automobile, been absent from
work with out justification, did not declare exterior actions, disclosed
confidential data, and been concerned in a battle of curiosity.

 

In the meantime,
the Court docket of Auditors had sought to recuperate the total contested sum of over
€157,000 for the irregularities attributed to CQ. CQ paid this quantity however
concurrently lodged an motion earlier than the Normal Court docket of the European Union
looking for the annulment of the restoration choice and compensation for
non-material injury allegedly suffered.

 

 

2.             
The safety of Eu’s monetary pursuits

 

In
Case T-386/19 (for additional feedback, see EU
Legislation Dwell Weblog and BETKONEXT
Publication n. 2/2024) the Normal Court docket discovered that the OLAF investigation
had not uncovered proof of all of the alleged irregularities. The Court docket additionally
concluded that the ECA’s choice to recuperate the sums in query was
sufficiently reasoned and well-founded.

 

On
the deserves, the Normal Court docket held that though 5 years had elapsed between
the info in query and the institution of the monetary entitlements, the
majority of the claims weren’t time-barred, because the ECA might solely have
recognized the related sums after OLAF’s investigation was concluded.

 

Furthermore,
in relation to the allegations regarding breaches of procedural safeguards,
the Court docket discovered that it couldn’t be excluded that the applicant had been
afforded a ample alternative to be heard on the related components, even
these he couldn’t touch upon previous to OLAF’s report. Given the absence of any
new or concrete proof on the contrary, and the applicant’s capability to lift
such issues throughout the written stage of the proceedings, the plea was rejected
as unfounded.

 

The
Court docket additional decided {that a} vital proportion of CQ’s conferences with
politicians have been unrelated to his duties as a Member of the Court docket of Auditors,
rendering the bills related to these conferences irregular. Nevertheless,
discovering that sure claims have been time-barred and that sure mission and
illustration bills, together with prices associated to CQ’s driver, have been
reputable, the Court docket annulled a part of the restoration choice.

 

Finally,
the Normal Court docket put aside sure facets of the ECA’s restoration choice.

 

It
dominated that a number of claims have been certainly time-barred and that a number of the mission
and illustration bills, in addition to driver-related prices, have been legitimate.
Consequently, the Normal Court docket partially annulled the ECA’s choice, lowering
the contested quantity by €19,254.20, whereas rejecting most of CQ’s claims.

 

Concerning
CQ’s declare for compensation, the Normal Court docket held that there was inadequate
proof to ascertain that the ECA’s actions brought about direct injury to his
fame or that it was chargeable for the unauthorized disclosure of
data.

 

 

3.             
Harm compensation

 

Within the CQ case at hand, the
plaintiff sought compensation of fifty,000 euros, claiming that he had suffered
severe injury to his profession and fame from the dissemination of
data associated to an OLAF investigation. In accordance with him, the ECA had
violated the presumption of innocence by disseminating components suggesting his
accountability earlier than he was formally knowledgeable. He disputes that the report was
forwarded to 3rd events (members of the Court docket and Parliament) earlier than him,
and that the press was in a position to publish its contents as early as July 11, 2018.
On the identical day, the Court docket issued an inside briefing word, in response to the
appellant, reinforcing the notion of guilt.

 

The criticism levelled on the
Court docket of Auditors was thus twofold: on the one hand, there would have been an
lively tortious habits – the disclosure of data not but identified to the
individual involved, in a context that steered legal responsibility; alternatively, an
omission – the failure to activate an inside investigation to establish the
supply of the leak. The Court docket responded by first elevating a plea of
inadmissibility on grounds of procedural defect, holding that the declare for
compensation couldn’t be introduced within the context of an motion for annulment
(Article 263 TFEU), however solely by an autonomous motion based mostly on Articles 268
and 340 TFEU.

 

Nevertheless, the identical Court docket later
acknowledged that, in precept, it’s potential to cumulate claims for annulment
and compensation inside the identical continuing, supplied sure formal
necessities are met. On this case, nonetheless, it was held that the plaintiff had
not adequately substantiated, from the outset, the grounds for the Union’s
non-contractual legal responsibility.

 

On the deserves of the case, the
Court docket rejected allegations of infringement of the presumption of innocence and
the precept of excellent administration, discovering that the inner communication
of July 11, 2018, was after the publication of the information by the press, which
occurred on account of a leak from an nameless supply.

 

Nevertheless, this reconstruction
raises a number of questions. The truth that the Court docket reacted with communications
directed inside the establishment, even after the newspaper article got here out,
doesn’t rule out the likelihood that these communications contributed to
consolidating a unfavorable portrayal of the plaintiff. The strongest objection
relates exactly to the precept of impartiality: even within the presence of a
leak that can’t be attributed to the administration, the latter stays sure
to prudent and impartial administration of data, significantly when the individual
involved has not but been put ready to formally know the acts that
concern her or him. The precept of excellent administration requires not solely
transparency and timeliness, but in addition steadiness in communication, particularly when
it impacts private rights.

 

The Court docket additionally dismissed the
failure to launch an inside inquiry, citing no obligation to take action. But, even
and not using a binding rule, confidentiality and administrative accountability might
justify such motion. In a rule-of-law framework, institutional inaction can
additionally entail legal responsibility. Moreover, the Court docket rejected the declare for failing to
set up wrongful conduct — the primary situation for non-contractual legal responsibility
— making examination of injury and causality pointless. Legally constant,
this consequence nonetheless raises doubts concerning the precise safety of
basic rights and rules in EU administrative motion.

 

 

4.             
Concluding remarks 

 

The
CQ v. Court docket of Auditors case is a major take a look at in assessing the
effectiveness of judicial safety with respect to the safety of the
Union’s monetary pursuits. The case highlights a latent pressure between two
basic necessities: on the one hand, the necessity to respect the procedural
ensures of the individual concerned; on the opposite, the crucial to successfully
defend the integrity of the EU funds.

 

In
this delicate steadiness, the ruling finally ends up downplaying the proactive position and
accountability that establishments ought to assume in stopping and coping with
irregularities. The truth that CQ’s conduct resulted in a misuse of public funds
that was not contested in substance, however solely partially acknowledged for
procedural causes, raises questions concerning the stage of diligence and management
exercised by the European establishment.

 

Nevertheless,
this case legislation can’t be seen in isolation. On
28 April 2025, the Official Journal of the European Union
printed a abstract of an motion for annulment introduced by the European Public
Prosecutor’s Workplace (EPPO) earlier than the Court docket of Justice (case T-99/25, lodged on
10 February 2025) pursuant to Article 263(4) TFEU. In that motion, the EPPO
challenges the choice adopted by the European Court docket of Auditors on 9 December
2024, denying the authorization to listen to sure workers members as witnesses in
an ongoing felony investigation into alleged wrongdoing inside the identical
establishment. The investigation, launched on the finish of 2022 following a report
from the European Anti-Fraud Workplace (OLAF), considerations info that probably
represent offences affecting the monetary pursuits of the Union.

 

In accordance
to the EPPO, the repeated refusal by the Court docket of Auditors to cooperate—first
by denying entry to its digital archives, then by refusing to carry immunity
and at last by stopping witnesses from testifying—has obstructed the
investigation and hindered the EPPO’s capability to find out whether or not the
allegations ought to result in prosecution. Below the EU Workers Rules,
authorization from the establishment is required for workers members to testify
about issues identified to them within the train of their duties. Nevertheless, as
clarified by the Court docket of Justice, such authorization might solely be withheld in
circumstances the place the Union’s “curiosity of appreciable significance and important to the
Union” is at stake. The EPPO argues that this situation clearly doesn’t apply
within the current case.

 

Taken
collectively, these two circumstances—one coping with particular person monetary accountability,
the opposite with institutional resistance to judicial cooperation—reveal a deeper
pressure inside the EU authorized and governance system: the problem of
making certain each private accountability and institutional transparency within the administration
and safety of EU public funds. On the one hand, the EU seeks to recuperate
unduly paid quantities from former members of its establishments; on the opposite, it
encounters systemic obstacles when a key establishment refuses to cooperate with
its personal prosecutorial authority.

 

This
duality exposes a structural concern. When an EU establishment can, in impact,
block a felony investigation by withholding key testimonies, it undermines
the very logic of interinstitutional checks and the position of the EPPO as an unbiased
prosecutorial physique. Such conduct raises basic questions concerning the
coherence of the EU’s system for shielding the rule of legislation and monetary
integrity. Extra broadly, it calls into query whether or not the precept of
honest cooperation—enshrined in Article 13(2) TEU—is being absolutely revered
when institutional pursuits are perceived to outweigh these of justice and
public accountability.

 

In
conclusion, the CQ v. Court docket of Auditors case and the EPPO’s enchantment in T-99/25 spotlight
the rising want for a scientific reflection on how to make sure each particular person
and institutional accountability inside the EU authorized framework. At a time when
the Union is managing unprecedented ranges of public expenditure—significantly
by devices akin to Subsequent Technology EU—it’s important to make sure that
mechanisms for oversight, enforcement, and judicial cooperation should not solely
obtainable in concept, however absolutely operational and unobstructed in observe. A
deeper and extra vital exploration of those authorized and institutional
dynamics—throughout academia, jurisprudence, and policymaking—shouldn’t be merely
advisable: it’s crucial. In a context the place EU funds are more and more
vital and politically delicate (i.e. Subsequent Technology EU), opaque
administration by officers can undermine public belief and the effectiveness of the
safety of the Union’s monetary pursuits.