Introduction
On 16 July 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Fifth Chamber) delivered its judgment in Case C-559/23 P, International Management Group (IMG) v European Commission. The case arose as an appeal and concerned the non-contractual liability of the European Union in connection with investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF).
At the heart of the dispute was the alleged unauthorised disclosure of an OLAF investigation report to the press. The judgment addresses several legally significant questions: the conditions for attributing such a leak to the EU institutions, the applicable rules on confidentiality under Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013, the nature and proof of material and non-material damage, the limitation period governing actions for damages, and the protection afforded to legal opinions in the context of institutional proceedings.
This article examines each of those issues as they emerge from the judgment, with the aim of explaining their significance for the broader framework of EU institutional accountability and the rights of parties subject to OLAF investigations.
Background: OLAF investigations and the duty of confidentiality
OLAF, the European Anti-Fraud Office, is the body responsible within the EU institutional framework for conducting administrative investigations into fraud, corruption, and other irregularities affecting the financial interests of the Union. The legal framework governing its operations includes Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013, which sets out the rules on the conduct of investigations and, critically for this case, the obligations of confidentiality that attach to them.
Article 10(3) of Regulation No 883/2013 is specifically identified in the judgment as a provision of central relevance. That provision concerns the confidentiality obligations applicable to information obtained in the course of OLAF investigations. The existence of such a provision reflects the legislature's recognition that investigation reports and related materials are sensitive, and that their premature or unauthorised disclosure can cause serious harm to the persons under investigation.
In the present case, IMG alleged that the contents of an OLAF investigation report concerning it had been disclosed to the press without authorisation. The question of whether that disclosure could be attributed to the EU, and whether it gave rise to liability, formed the core of the litigation.
Imputability of the leaks to the EU
One of the principal legal questions addressed in the judgment is the imputability of the alleged leaks to the European Union. For the EU to incur non-contractual liability under the conditions established by EU law, the unlawful conduct in question must be attributable to an EU institution, body, office, or agency.
The judgment engages with the question of how a claimant may establish that a leak of confidential OLAF material originated from within the EU institutional sphere, as opposed to some other source. This is a matter of considerable practical difficulty, since the internal workings of institutions are not transparent to outside parties, and direct evidence of the source of a leak will rarely be available.
The Court's analysis of imputability in this context is therefore significant for understanding the evidentiary standards that apply when a party seeks to hold the EU responsible for the unauthorised disclosure of investigation-related information. The judgment's treatment of this issue must be read alongside its broader discussion of the burden of proof in non-contractual liability proceedings.
The burden of proof in non-contractual liability claims
The judgment addresses the burden of proof as a distinct and important element of the non-contractual liability framework. In proceedings of this kind, it falls to the claimant to establish the conditions necessary for liability to arise: the unlawfulness of the conduct, the reality of the damage suffered, and the causal link between the two.
The Court's treatment of the burden of proof in the context of leaked investigation reports raises questions about the practical ability of affected parties to discharge that burden. Where the alleged wrongdoing consists of an internal institutional act — the disclosure of a confidential document — the claimant may face structural disadvantages in gathering the necessary evidence.
The judgment's reasoning on this point is therefore relevant not only to the specific facts of the IMG case but also to the broader question of how the EU's non-contractual liability regime operates in practice when the alleged harm flows from institutional conduct that is, by its nature, difficult to document from the outside.
Material and non-material damage
The judgment considers both material and non-material damage as heads of claim in the context of the unauthorised disclosure of an OLAF investigation report. This distinction is well established in EU non-contractual liability law, and the present case provides an opportunity to examine how each category of damage is assessed in the specific context of reputational and operational harm caused by a leak to the press.
Material damage in this context might include quantifiable financial losses suffered by IMG as a result of the disclosure — for example, the loss of contracts or business opportunities that can be traced to the publication of the investigation report's contents. Non-material damage, by contrast, relates to harm that is not readily reducible to a financial figure, such as reputational injury or the distress caused by public exposure of an ongoing investigation.
The Court's analysis of these two categories of damage, and of the evidence required to substantiate claims under each, provides important guidance for parties who may find themselves in analogous situations following the disclosure of confidential OLAF materials.
The limitation period under Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice
A further significant issue addressed in the judgment is the limitation period applicable to actions for damages against the EU. The first paragraph of Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union is identified in the judgment as the relevant provision governing this question.
Limitation periods serve an important function in legal systems by providing certainty and preventing the indefinite exposure of defendants to claims. In the context of EU non-contractual liability, the application of the limitation period requires careful attention to the question of when time begins to run — a matter that may be particularly complex where the harm results from a disclosure that the claimant may not have been immediately aware of, or where the full extent of the damage only becomes apparent over time.
The judgment's treatment of the limitation period issue is therefore of practical importance for parties considering whether to bring non-contractual liability claims against EU institutions, and for understanding the temporal constraints within which such claims must be initiated.
Confidentiality of legal opinions
The judgment also addresses the question of the confidentiality of legal opinions in the context of the proceedings. This issue arises in the institutional setting where legal advice obtained by EU bodies in connection with their activities may be sought as evidence or otherwise brought into play in litigation.
The protection of legal opinions from disclosure is a recognised principle in EU law, reflecting the importance of ensuring that institutions can obtain frank and independent legal advice without fear that such advice will be exposed in subsequent proceedings. The judgment's engagement with this question in the context of an OLAF-related liability case illustrates the intersection between the general principles of institutional confidentiality and the specific procedural demands of non-contractual liability litigation.
Understanding how the Court approaches the confidentiality of legal opinions in this setting is relevant for practitioners and institutions alike, as it bears on the scope of disclosure obligations and the limits of transparency in EU institutional proceedings.
Significance of the judgment for the OLAF framework
The judgment in IMG v Commission has broader significance for the legal framework governing OLAF investigations and the rights of parties subject to them. By engaging with Article 10(3) of Regulation No 883/2013 and the conditions under which a breach of that provision may give rise to EU liability, the Court contributes to the development of the accountability mechanisms that surround OLAF's investigative activities.
The case underscores the importance of the confidentiality obligations that attach to OLAF investigation reports, not merely as procedural requirements but as substantive protections for the individuals and entities under investigation. A finding that the unauthorised disclosure of such a report can engage the non-contractual liability of the EU reinforces the legal weight of those obligations.
At the same time, the judgment's treatment of imputability, burden of proof, and damage reflects the inherent challenges that claimants face in establishing liability in cases of this kind. The outcome of the case, as determined by the Court, provides a reference point for future disputes involving the alleged mishandling of confidential OLAF materials.
Conclusion
The judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-559/23 P, IMG v European Commission, addresses a cluster of legally significant questions arising from the alleged unauthorised disclosure of an OLAF investigation report to the press. It engages with the conditions for non-contractual liability of the EU, the interpretation of Article 10(3) of Regulation No 883/2013, the rules on imputability and burden of proof, the assessment of material and non-material damage, the limitation period under the first paragraph of Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, and the confidentiality of legal opinions.
Taken together, these elements make the judgment an important reference for understanding the legal protections available to parties subject to OLAF investigations, the accountability obligations of EU institutions in handling confidential investigation materials, and the procedural framework within which non-contractual liability claims must be pursued.
This article is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Sources consulted
Published by Synojus International
Back to English publications