Former EU Commissioner John Dalli said in a statement issued this evening that during the hearings held betwee 7 and 8 July, he maintained full media silence since he did not feel that he should in any way interfere in the court proceedings.

“Mr Barroso thought differently and a press release was issued on 7 July attaching the pre-prepared statement that he read to the court as witness,” Mr Dalli said.

Mr Dalli said that a number of new facts emerged during the hearing, listed as follows:

During his testimony, Mr Barroso admitted that the Secretary General, Catherine Day was in communication with OLAF about the progress of the report.  He stated that Ms Day reported to him, days before the report was handed to him that the conclusions will be negative in my regard. Firstly, this revelation shatters the often repeated assertion that OLAF is independent from the Commission and secondly, it contradicts statements made earlier by Mr Barroso that he had no contact whatsoever with OLAF about the progress of this report.

Mr Barroso states that he relied on the covering letter and intimated that he hardly read the report.  A reading of the report shows that the conclusions in this letter were not substantiated.  Also the report shows total submissiveness of OLAF to the tobacco industry.

Mr Barroso states that he had given me an option to give him a full and convincing explanation. Firstly, my lawyers proved that his was a very late invention by the Commission.  No such option existed during the meeting of the 16 October 2012 and secondly, I could not give a full and convincing explanation when the details were being hidden from me as Mr Barroso refused to let me even read the covering letter or see the report. If I had the report I could have easily given a full and convincing explanation about the meetings with the alleged tobacco lobbyists; the accusation that I was minimising my contacts with Mr Zammit; the circumstantial evidence that has been put together by Olaf head Giovanni Kessler while the timeline which comes out from the statements of Swedish Match and ESTOC employees themselves about the entrapment that they planned and executed.

Two press statements were prepared both with the same outcome, my termination.  These statements were handed to the spokesperson services before the meeting started.

The Commission Lawyers say that the Commission did not know that a press conference would be held by Mr Kessler when in fact it was even referred to in the press statement released by the Commission on the 16 October 2012.

The telephone conversation between Mr Barroso and then Malta prime minister Lawrence Gonzi, was a short one.

Mr Barroso admitted that he did not even think about seeking the comfort of a scrutiny of the OLAF report by the Supervisory Committee before acting on it.  In fact he tried to ridicule the idea.  In an important decision like the one he was expected to take, and of which he was aware days before, someone acting in good faith and in a proper precautionary manner, would have done so.  The precautionary principle is an important practice in the decision making process of the Commission. Mr Barroso knew that the report he had from OLAF would not hold water and Mr Barroso was afraid that a review by the Supervisory Committee would prevent him from pursuing his objective of terminating me.

Mr Barroso admitted that he did not give me the possibility of legal advice on the excuse that this was a political issue and not a contract of service issue.

Mr Barroso stated that he was in a hurry because he was afraid of leaks.  The leaks were being made by the Commission:

OLAF had phoned Swedish Match two days before the meeting between Mr Barroso and me to tell them that there will be a press conference on the 17th October 2012.

Catherine Day emailed Fredrik Peyron of Swedish Match before the Commission press release was issued informing him of my termination.

I would also add from facts that have been in the public domain since the 20th March 2013, that Swedish Match had access to the OLAF report while the European Parliament, NGO’s and myself were denied access to it.

Mr Barroso met his immediate collaborators many times to discuss the outcome of the OLAF investigation and possible courses of action.

Romero states that in his presence I kept referring to the OLAF conclusions as conjectures.  Far from an unambiguous voluntary resignation.

The opinion of the Supervisory Committee which was finally published on 4 July 2014 stated unequivocally that my human rights were violated by OLAF.