No! It wasn’t. OLAF itself admitted that there was no proof that Dalli was guilty of anything and of agreeing to tampering with the directive (in fact that would have meant his potical suicidal).

An independent source as The Lancet says that Dalli’s forced resignation created undoubted delays to the progress of the directive if not its final remote arrest.

If he insists crucial parts have been modified, it’s done.

We could start considering a revocation mechanism for MP’s, gather enough signatures and an elected embarrassment is shown the door.

(ex Article 213 TEC)

The Members of the Commission shall refrain from any action incompatible with their duties. Member States shall respect their independence and shall not seek to influence them in the performance of their tasks.

The Members of the Commission may not, during their term of office, engage in any other occupation, whether gainful or not. When entering upon their duties they shall give a solemn undertaking that, both during and after their term of office, they will respect the obligations arising therefrom and in particular their duty to behave with integrity and discretion as regards the acceptance, after they have ceased to hold office, of certain appointments or benefits. In the event of any breach of these obligations, the Court of Justice may, on application by the Council acting by a simple majority or the Commission, rule that the Member concerned be, according to the circumstances, either compulsorily retired in accordance with Article 247 or deprived of his right to a pension or other benefits in its stead.

“In this respect, I would remind you that you have had in good time several opportunities to react to the issues raised with regard to the OLAF investigation.”

It means that Dalli had faced the issues raised by OLAF before his meeting with Barroso, and Dalli was given the opportunity to be heard by OLAF, but OLAF was not convinced by the explanations given by Mr. Dalli presumably because OLAF had different evidence. Thus, I understand, OLAF delivered its conclusion after giving a fair opportunity to Dalli to reply to allegations.

What you just wrote does not make much sense, and here is why.

There is little reason to believe that Dalli is ‘the sacrificial lamb’ especially since Barosso declared that the EU directive will be implemented as-is and without amendments.

It is only logical that the EU would rather embarrass a lobbyist than attract unwarranted attention towards one of its own Commissioners, let alone fire him.

If Dalli was perceived as lying or hiding the truth during OLAF investigations, then even if legally he can get away with it, from the moral point of view he becomes a cropper.

During OLAF’s interviews with him, there is a great possibility that he was hearing them all-right but his understanding of what was being said was different.
Had he fully understood the implications, earlier on during the investigations, he still had the opportunity to correct and fess up about ‘irregular relationships with Zammit’ whether intentional or otherwise.

Even if at an early stage it became obvious that his position was untenable, then he could have ‘resigned’ for personal reasons and not give Barroso & Co. any reason to make public statements by the handful and publishing ill-written letters by Dalli and sharp replies in correct language and properly addressed to Mr Dalli.

Maryanne, Dalli doesn’t do dignity, he prefers money.

I was tempted to pass the same remark some time ago but respecting some Qriema made me bite my tongue, err leave the keyboard alone.
Did Barroso take unfair advantage, you think?

I believe that John Dalli has been proverbially sacrificed as a lamb to the slaughter.

He may have screwed up (Big time if I may add), in our local political scenario; However, I believe that Sivio Zammit, is the main culprit, by using his warped manipulation on John Dalli for his own personal gain, without Dalli’s knowledge.

P.T. Barnum comes to mind.

Gonzi is responsible for his actions and not anybody’s else’s, especially Dalli’s.

Dalli is sour because he knows that with Gonzi, there is no wavering on principles, changing them to suit the occasion and to treat some better than others.

Gonzi dealt with facts on a certain date and committed no error appointing Dalli as Commissioner. Gonzi does not hold anybody’s hands, pulling someone from the dangers of doing stupid things. What happened to Dalli (if anything) was Dalli’s own doing.

There is absolutely nothing to rub on Gonzi’s face and the LP would be the least qualified to do so, anyway.