Lawyers for European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso and former EU Health Commissioner John Dalli argued before judges in the European Court of Justice this afternoon over whether Mr Dalli resigned or was forced out of the commission on October 12, 2012.

The Commission is insisting that Mr Dalli resigned voluntarily after Mr Barroso confronted him with the findings of a report by Olaf claiming that he must have known of alleged trading in influence by his long-time associate Silvio Zammit.

Mr Dalli denies the claims.

Lawyer Stefano Rodriquez, appearing for Mr Dalli, went over Mr Dalli’s last meeting with Mr Barroso and noted that Mr Dalli never signed a resignation letter. Mr Barroso, he argued, had decided that Mr Dalli had to go even before he confronted the then health commissioner with the Olaf report.

The Olaf report’s conclusions had not been checked by Mr Barroso and Mr Dalli was not given the opportunity to explain his case, despite what was claimed yesterday by Mr Barroso (that he had an open mind before meeting Mr Dalli).

Ben Smulders, for the Commission, said Mr Barroso asked Mr Dalli for a comprehensive explanation in reaction to the conclusions of the Olaf investigation. He didn't give any and was then given two options: to resign or be sacked. He chose the former.

Mr Barroso was legally empowered to sack Mr Dalli but did not do so, Dr Smulders said.

Many political resignations were made under pressure but it did not mean that they were not valid. Moreover, Mr Dalli was not a civil servant but a very experienced politician who had actually faced a similar scenario in Malta.

Dr Smulders noted that according to evidence, Mr Dalli had told his staff that he had resigned and would go to Malta to clear his name.

Replying to questions from the court, Laure Levi, also representing Mr Dalli, said he was not given time to consider his legal position.

Dr Smulders said Mr Dalli could had forced Mr Barroso to sack him but he did not do so.

One of the judges observed that while Mr Dalli crossed out certain parts of a resignation letter prepared for him (and which he did not sign) he did not delete the crucial sentence which said: 'I resign with immediate effect'.

Mr Rodriguez said Mr Dalli crossed out certain parts of the letter but then he understood that this did not represent the discussion he had just had with Mr Barroso and therefore did not sign it. Judge Forwood observed that ‘I resign with immediate effect’ was the first sentence.

Dr Rodriguez said one could not infer that he accepted the lines that he did not cross out. The point was that he did not sign the letter.

The court also heard arguments criticism by the supervisory Committee about the way Olaf investigated Mr Dalli. The representatives of the Commission said the Commission did not look into this and had no knowledge of whether a particular investigation had been sent to the supervisory committee.

Laure Levi said the point was that Mr Barroso did not even question whether everything was in order.

The sitting ended after three hours. A verdict is expected at around the end of the year or early 2015.

See the live report at http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20140708/local/live-from-luxembourg-dalli-vs-barroso-round-two.526165