EUROPEAN UNION · OLAF · CASE STUDY
IMG v Commission: When an OLAF Report Reaches the Press
Confidentiality, attribution and the burden of proof after an institutional investigation report is leaked.
International Management Group (IMG) v European Commission, Case C-559/23 P, is a 2026 Court of Justice judgment concerning confidentiality in an investigation conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF).
IMG, an organisation involved in the reconstruction of Bosnia and Herzegovina, had been the subject of an OLAF investigation. In a report dated 9 December 2014, OLAF questioned IMG’s status as an international organisation and raised issues concerning its legal personality. In 2015, the substance of the report was leaked to the press.
01 · THE LEAK
An Unauthorised Disclosure
The Commission was unable to identify the source of the leak. IMG brought an action for damages, arguing that the Commission and OLAF had acted unlawfully and that the disclosure caused material and non-material harm.
In 2023, the General Court dismissed the action. Among other points, it found no direct evidence, such as document markings, establishing that the leak was attributable to OLAF or the Commission, and noted that OLAF had carried out an investigation into the leak.
02 · THE APPEAL
The Burden of Proof Question
On 16 July 2026, the Court of Justice set aside the General Court’s judgment. The Court identified an error of law concerning the burden of proof applicable to an allegation that the confidentiality of an OLAF investigation had not been respected.
The Court recognised that an unauthorised disclosure of an OLAF investigation report attributable to the Commission can constitute a sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals.
CURRENT PROCEDURAL POSITION
The Court of Justice annulled the 2023 General Court judgment and remitted the remaining claims concerning material and non-material damage arising on or after 21 December 2015 for further examination.
03 · WHY THE CASE MATTERS
Confidentiality Becomes an Evidentiary Question
The case is important because the dispute is not simply whether an OLAF report was confidential. The harder question is how a claimant can establish responsibility for an unauthorised disclosure when the source of a leak is not directly identified.
The 2026 judgment therefore places the evidentiary architecture of institutional confidentiality under scrutiny: what must the injured party prove, what can reasonably be inferred from the circumstances, and how should the burden of proof operate when the relevant information is largely within institutional control?
PRIMARY MATERIALS
IMG v Commission
Court of Justice of the European Union
Case C-559/23 P · ECLI:EU:C:2026:598
Judgment: 16 July 2026
Official 2026 judgment — EUR-Lex →
General Court
Case T-752/20 · ECLI:EU:T:2023:366
Judgment: 28 June 2023