Can OLAF harm you with a press release, even without mentioning your name?

A press release from a European institution such as the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) can cause significant damage to a person's reputation, career and health, even if the person is not explicitly named. Yes, the European Union can be held liable for these damages. In a ruling of 1 October 2025, the General Court of the European Union ordered the European Commission to pay €50,000 in damages to an investigator who was identifiable in an OLAF press release and suffered significant harm as a result.

The facts and legal context

The case revolves around a Greek academic researcher who received a prestigious EU grant for a research project. After a financial audit, certain personnel costs were deemed ineligible, leading to an investigation by OLAF into possible irregularities or fraud.

Upon completion of the investigation, OLAF sent its final report to the competent national judicial authorities with a recommendation to initiate proceedings against the investigator and others. Crucially, on May 5, 2020, OLAF also published a press release on its website. Although the investigator's name was not mentioned, the notice contained sufficient details - her nationality, gender, the fact that her father worked at the university in question and the amount of the grant - that made her identifiable in her academic and social environment.

The researcher went to the EU General Court and claimed compensation of 1.1 million euros for the intangible damage she suffered due to the publication of this press release.

The decision of the General Court

The Court ruled in favor of the researcher and ordered the European Commission (as the institution responsable for OLAF) to pay €50,000 in damages. According to established case law, in order to establish the Union's non-contractual liability, three conditions must be met:

1. Unlawfulness Of the behavior of the institution.
2. Real damage.
3. An causal link between the behavior and the damage.

The General Court found that all three conditions were met. According to the General Court, OLAF had committed several "sufficiently serious breaches" of Union law.

Legal analysis and interpretation

The essence of this judgment lies in the finding that OLAF, despite its duty to inform the public, seriously violated the fundamental rights of the person under investigation in several ways. A "sufficiently serious breach" is required for liability and means that the institution has seriously and manifestly exceeded the limits of its authority.

The Court identified three crucial errors by OLAF:

1. Unlawful processing of personal data: Publishing details such as nationality, age and family relationships was not necessary to inform the public about the fraud investigation. It even implicitly admitted that these details were included to increase media coverage. This is a violation of the principles of data protection enshrined in Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, the 'GDPR' for EU institutions.
2. Violation of the presumption of innocence: By using the term "fraud" in the press release, OLAF presented the investigator as guilty even before a judge had ruled on the matter. This is a flagrant violation of the presumption of innocence, a fundamental right enshrined in Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The communication was not "balanced and measured," as required by case law.
3. Breach of duty of care and neutrality: OLAF published factually incorrect information by stating that "none of the investigators" knew that their names were attached to the project, while OLAF's own final report showed that ten investigators had confirmed their participation. This shows a manifest lack of due diligence and crosses the boundaries of neutral and impartial communication.

What this specifically means

This ruling has important practical implications for several parties:

• For persons subject to investigation (by OLAF or other agencies): Your rights, such as the presumption of innocence and data protection, must be respected at all times, including in the investigating agency's external communications. Even an "anonymous" press release may be unlawful if it makes you identifiable and damages your reputation. It is crucial to carefully document all negative consequences (e.g. withdrawn job offers, psychological complaints) as a basis for any claim for damages.
• For EU and government institutions: The duty of transparency is not absolute. It is limited by the fundamental rights of the individual. Communication services must carefully weigh the necessity and proportionality of each communication. Using sensational details to attract media attention is unlawful and can lead to liability.
• For the media and the public: A press release from an investigative body is not a final judgment. This ruling emphasizes that such communications should be interpreted with caution, as they may contain inaccuracies or distort the facts.

FAQ (frequently asked questions)

How can I be harmed if my name is not literally in the press release?
You need not be explicitly identified by name. If the press release contains a combination of details (such as your occupation, nationality, workplace, project details, etc.) that allows people in your social or professional environment to identify you, this is legally considered the processing of your personal data. The harm arises because your environment can link you to the allegations.

Why is the European Commission being condemned and not OLAF itself?
Although OLAF is operationally independent in its investigations, it is an office established within the structure of the European Commission. For non-contractual liability under Article 340 TFEU the Commission shall be considered the responsible legal entity to compensate for damages caused by its offices.

The researcher received "only" €50,000, while she asked for €1.1 million. Why the difference?
Compensation must be real and proven. The Court awarded compensation for the proven damage to her honor and reputation, the concrete damage to her career (a withdrawn job offer) and the proven damage to her health. The Court determines the amount of immaterial damages ex aequo et bono (in fairness and equity) based on the facts of the case, which often results in a lower amount than that claimed.

Conclusion

This ruling is a clear reminder that European institutions are not above the law when communicating about their investigations. The balance between the public's right to information and the fundamental rights of the individual - such as the presumption of innocence and the right to data protection - is delicate and must be carefully guarded. A seemingly anonymous press release can have devastating consequences and, as this case demonstrates, lead to a conviction for damages.