It was impossible for John Dalli to remain in his position as European Commissioner given the political situation he was in, outgoing EU Commission President José Manuel Barroso insisted yesterday.

He gave the comment as he emerged from a four-and-a-half hour hearing at the European Court of Justice in which Mr Barroso and top officials from the Commission for the first time clearly spelt out the justification for Mr Dalli’s forced resignation in 2012, following a damning investigative report.

Asked by Times of Malta why he had waited for so long to defend himself from Mr Dalli’s multiple allegations, when the Commission previously stuck to rather dry comments, Mr Barroso said it was not his place to get into a media war with Mr Dalli.

I am not in the business of feeding speculations, intoxications, mystifications

He added colour to that statement, saying: “I am not in the business of feeding speculations, intoxications, mystifications.” It was a direct reference to Mr Dalli’s theory that he was ousted because he was the victim of a conspiracy between the Commission and the tobacco industry.

“I was not the one having irregular meetings with tobacco lobbyists hundreds of miles away from Brussels and which were mediated by a restaurateur (Mr Dalli’s former canvasser Silvio Zammit). It was Mr Dalli.”

The hearing was the first round in what has been played up by supporters and foes of both sides as a highlight of the Dalli versus Barroso saga, which has been going on ever since Mr Dalli resigned from the European Commission.

John Dalli (centre) seen in the Luxembourg court yesterday. Photo: Mark MicallefJohn Dalli (centre) seen in the Luxembourg court yesterday. Photo: Mark Micallef

European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso speaking to the media after testifying. Photo: Mark MicallefEuropean Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso speaking to the media after testifying. Photo: Mark Micallef

The former PN minister stepped down after the EU anti-fraud agency (OLAF) concluded there was “unambiguous circumstantial evidence” indicating he was aware that his former associate, Mr Zammit, had asked tobacco firm Swedish Match for a bribe to alter EU tobacco legislation under his remit, and Mr Dalli done nothing about it.

Mr Dalli has vehemently denied any wrongdoing and throughout the past two years has instead accused the investigating agency, and especially its head Giovanni Kessler, of producing a “fraudulent” investigation which simply had the goal of giving the Commission President an excuse to “terminate” him.

He uses the term fraudulent purposefully, to liken what happened to him in 2012 with his situation in 2004, when former private investigator Joe Zahra fabricated an investigative report claiming Mr Dalli had taken kickbacks. Mr Zahra was eventually jailed.

From a legal standpoint, however, yesterday’s case had little to do with this wider conspiracy. The case essentially concerns a claim of unfair dismissal filed by Mr Dalli against the Commission.

He is arguing that he did not resign of his own volition but rather was forced by circumstances to step down – principally by the fact that in the crucial meeting with Mr Barroso of October 16, 2012, he was only given half an hour to choose whether to step down or be sacked rather than the 24 hours he asked for.

Virtually all of the questions that came from the panel of five judges hearing the case yesterday concerned details that could help shed more light on the claims of either side.

It seems that you were at the time unwilling to say you were forced to resign which is what you are saying now

For instance, at one point, one of the judges, Nicholas James Forwood, confronted Mr Dalli with a transcript from an interview that he gave PBS’s afternoon show TV Hemm on the same day of his resignation.

The judge pointed out that at one point, when asked whether he had stepped down voluntarily, Mr Dalli said: “I do not stay where I am not wanted.”

“It seems that you were at the time unwilling to say you were forced to resign which is what you are saying now,” Judge Forwood said.

On the witness stand, Mr Dalli, who was appeared parched and out of breath at moments, insisted that Mr Barroso was so forceful that he really had no option.

“The bottom line was that I would finish in disgrace and that my integrity would be totally trodden upon. These were not options, these were excuses,” he said, underlining that he was not given the report in order to be able to see for himself the evidence there was against him.

The same judge questioned Mr Barroso right after he claimed that when he walked into the now infamous meeting, he still harboured hope that Mr Dalli might somehow convince him that he could stay on.

But the judge asked: “If he did not have access to this (the full OLAF investigation report) how did you expect him to come up with a convincing reply?”

Mr Barroso replied by insisting on the main point he made in his evidence, which was to emphasise that Mr Dalli had to justify his position or step down for political reasons not legal ones.

“This was not a legal process. It was a political meeting... I was expecting him to say this is completely false. I don’t know this Mr Zammit. On the contrary, he confirmed that this bar person (Mr Zammit owns Peppi’s Kiosk in Sliema) was brokering meetings about the Tobacco Products Directive,” he said.

“I couldn’t believe it. What was this thing? In fact he agreed that it was inappropriate,” he said. “By the end of that meeting I had completely lost confidence in him.”

This has been the Commission’s line right from the start. In the few statements after Mr Dalli’s resignation, Brussels always emphasised that his position was politically untenable, even though he was presumed innocent.

However, with yesterday’s hearing, Mr Barroso was given the opportunity to amplify this point like never before. Moreover, his former head of cabinet, Johannes Laitenberger, and the head of the legal services Romero Requena, further propped up the argument in their testimony.

At one point, one of the Mr Dalli’s lawyers picked this up and suggested that today, in the final hearing that will see the lawyers make their last pleas, she might object to the admissibility of these people’s testimony simply because they are still Commission staff and therefore under Mr Barroso’s command.

She even questioned, along these lines, Joanna Darmanin, Mr Dalli’s chief of cabinet, who was not at the meeting between the two men and had no knowledge of the investigation.

“How did you prepare for this hearing,” she asked. “Well, when I received the summons from the court I sat down and started going through my memories and cross checking...” she replied.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.