“As a token of reparation, Dalli demands the symbolic payment of one euro.”

Brussels, 19/06/2014 (Agence Europe) – European Commission President José Manuel Barroso has been asked to appear before the EU General Court on 7 July in order to bear witness in the Dalli case.

The case takes its name from John Dalli, the former European commissioner for health (from Malta), who was pushed to resign from his post following an alleged corruption affair linked to the tobacco industry (see EUROPE 11098).

The oral evidence from witnesses in case T-562/12 will be heard in Luxembourg on 7 July. The hearings of pleadings in this case will take place on Tuesday 8 July.

“On 7 July, high level figures from the European Union are called to bear witness before the General Court in the Dalli case”, the General Court announced on 19 June (our translation).

As well as Barroso and Dalli, the General Court has asked to hear Barroso’s head of cabinet, Johannes Laitenberger, Director General of the European Commission’s Legal Service, Luis Romero Requena, former head of Dalli’s cabinet, Joanna Darmanin, and former spokesperson for Dalli, Frédéric Vincent.

The European justice system is trying to determine whether or not Barroso’s decision to ask for Dalli’s resignation was legal. Dalli was pushed to resign quickly by Barroso in October 2012 for alleged insider influence. Since his resignation, Dalli has constantly proclaimed his innocence and asserts he was the victim of a tobacco industry plot that trapped him when he was preparing to present a new proposal for a directive to toughen anti-tobacco legislation.

Dalli appealed to the General Court of the EU in order to obtain annulment of the oral decision by which Barroso demanded Dalli’s resignation on 16 October 2012, as well as to obtain reparation for the prejudice he has suffered.

Dalli says that Barroso was not competent to demand his resignation (in Dalli’s view, only the Court of Justice of the EU is competent to declare that a member of the Commission must resign who no longer fulfils the necessary conditions for the exercise of his duties or who has committed a serious error), that he did not hand in his resignation validly, and that the reasons explaining Barroso’s decision are incorrect.

Other grievances that Dalli raises are that OLAF’s investigation process was not conducted correctly, that he was deprived of his right to defend himself appropriately, and that his right to the presumption of innocence was violated (during a press conference on 17 October 2012). As a token of reparation, Dalli demands the symbolic payment of one euro.

On 17 October, the OLAF director general stated during a press conference that the decision-making process on the tobacco directive had not been carried out and that it was not proved that Dalli had participated directly, as an instigator, in the alleged peddling of influence.

By contrast, OLAF stated that Dalli did know that a person was using his name and his position to secure financial gains. OLAF criticises Dalli for not taking any steps to prevent these deeds, to dissociate himself from them or to point them out.

Dalli states that none of his actions was intended to involve him in an attempt to peddle influence and that he never intended to amend the draft tobacco directive in the direction sought by the tobacco industry. (LC)