{"id":100361,"date":"2025-10-05T11:40:08","date_gmt":"2025-10-05T10:40:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/?p=100361"},"modified":"2025-10-05T11:42:52","modified_gmt":"2025-10-05T10:42:52","slug":"can-olaf-harm-you-with-a-press-release-even-without-mentioning-your-name","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/kan-olaf-u-schade-berokkenen-met-een-persbericht-ook-zonder-uw-naam-te-noemen\/","title":{"rendered":"Can OLAF harm you with a press release, even without mentioning your name?"},"content":{"rendered":"

A press release from a European institution such as the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF<\/a>) 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<\/a> of 1 October 2025, the General Court of the European Union ordered the European Commission to pay \u20ac50,000 in damages to an investigator who was identifiable in an OLAF press release and suffered significant harm as a result.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The facts and legal context<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The decision of the General Court<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The Court ruled in favor of the researcher and ordered the European Commission (as the institution responsable for OLAF) to pay \u20ac50,000 in damages. According to established case law, in order to establish the Union's non-contractual liability, three conditions must be met:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. Unlawfulness<\/strong> Of the behavior of the institution.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. Real damage<\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. A causal link<\/strong> between the behavior and the damage.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Legal analysis and interpretation<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The Court identified three crucial errors by OLAF:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \n
    1. Unlawful processing of personal data<\/strong>: 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<\/a>, the 'GDPR<\/a>' for EU institutions.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    2. Violation of the presumption of innocence<\/strong>: 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<\/a>. The communication was not \"balanced and measured,\" as required by case law. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
    3. Breach of duty of care and neutrality<\/strong>: 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. <\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

      What this specifically means<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

      This ruling has important practical implications for several parties:<\/p>\n\n\n\n