This is minor issue really (although clearly it is his strategy).

The real issue is whether the Commission as “the employer” (if one can assimilate the Commission to a normal employer), caused the ‘constructive dismissal’ in a fair manner.

Should Barroso have explained the situation to Dalli and should Dalli have been allowed to rebut the accusations… or was the OLAF investigation (instigated by the Commission, hence by and for the employer) sufficient enough for such requisites (explanation and rebuttal)?

[Daphne – Please bear in mind that this is not an employer/employee situation. This is a prime minister/minister situation, for comparative purposes.]

At face value it seems the OLAF investigaiton gave Dalli sufficient opportunity to consider the accusations and to rebut (it is claimed he also had his lawyers with him).

Ultimately, the Commission seems to have followed reasonable procedure and therefore could decide on the basis of the OLAF report without having to read it out to Dalli as Dalli new the basis of the contents already.

Unfairness would arise if Dalli was either not aware of the investigation or if he was not given the opportunity to arise, otherwise he is merely shifting the focus of the attention on petty issues which however catch the attention of the untrained eye.