# C_2010301EN.01004701.xml

| 6.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/47

---

Appeal brought on 10 September 2010 by Paulette Füller-Tomlinson against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 1 July 2010 in Case F-97/08, Füller-Tomlinson v Parliament

(Case T-390/10 P)

()

2010/C 301/75

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Paulette Füller-Tomlinson (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by L. Levi, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought by the appellant

Form of order sought by the appellant

| — | Set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 1 July 2010 in Case F-97/07; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 1 July 2010 in Case F-97/07;

| — | Consequently, grant the applicant the form of order sought at first instance and therefore






  — | annul the decision of 9 April 2008 of the Head of the Pensions and Social Insurance Unit, setting, in Article 3, the proportion of partial permanent invalidity attributable to occupational disease at 20 %; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Consequently, grant the applicant the form of order sought at first instance and therefore

—

annul the decision of 9 April 2008 of the Head of the Pensions and Social Insurance Unit, setting, in Article 3, the proportion of partial permanent invalidity attributable to occupational disease at 20 %;

| — | so far as necessary, annul the decision rejecting the complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

so far as necessary, annul the decision rejecting the complaint;

| — | alternatively, order the defendant to pay the sum of EUR 12 000 as compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, order the defendant to pay the sum of EUR 12 000 as compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant;

| — | order the defendant to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the present appeal, the applicant is seeking to have set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 1 July 2010 in Case F-97/08, Füller-Tomlinson v Parliament which dismissed the action in which the applicant had sought annulment of the decision of the European Parliament setting, in regard to the applicant, the proportion of partial permanent invalidity attributable to occupational disease at 20 % pursuant to the European Guide for Assessment, for medical purposes, of Physical and Mental Impairments.

Füller-Tomlinson

Parliament

In support of her appeal, the applicant puts forward several pleas in law alleging:

| — | an infringement of the scope of the Tribunal's powers of judicial review of the lawfulness of the conditions laid down by the cover regulation adopted under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, inasmuch as the Tribunal limited its review to manifest errors of assessment and to the exceeding by the institutions of their powers of assessment, whereas the review should be complete, covering the lawfulness of the substance of the measure; |
| --- | --- |

—

an infringement of the scope of the Tribunal's powers of judicial review of the lawfulness of the conditions laid down by the cover regulation adopted under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, inasmuch as the Tribunal limited its review to manifest errors of assessment and to the exceeding by the institutions of their powers of assessment, whereas the review should be complete, covering the lawfulness of the substance of the measure;

| — | an infringement of the review of manifest error of assessment, distortion of the file, infringement of the Tribunal's obligation to give reasons at first instance and an infringement of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and the cover regulation:






  — | inasmuch as the Tribunal did not take account of the statements made at the hearing in furtherance of the complaints made in the initiating application; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

an infringement of the review of manifest error of assessment, distortion of the file, infringement of the Tribunal's obligation to give reasons at first instance and an infringement of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and the cover regulation:

—

inasmuch as the Tribunal did not take account of the statements made at the hearing in furtherance of the complaints made in the initiating application;

| — | inasmuch as the Tribunal considered, in particular, that the doctor's freedom of assessment concerned only the pathological finding and not the fixing of the proportion of invalidity, thereby validating the binding character of the European Guide for Assessment of Physical and Mental Impairments, which limits the proportion of invalidity to 20 % in the present case, although the medical committee considered the applicant's proportion of invalidity to be 100 %; |
| --- | --- |

—

inasmuch as the Tribunal considered, in particular, that the doctor's freedom of assessment concerned only the pathological finding and not the fixing of the proportion of invalidity, thereby validating the binding character of the European Guide for Assessment of Physical and Mental Impairments, which limits the proportion of invalidity to 20 % in the present case, although the medical committee considered the applicant's proportion of invalidity to be 100 %;

| — | an infringement of the concept of a reasonable period of time and distortion of the file, inasmuch as the Tribunal refers, in its statement of the facts, to a medical examination which never took place and then concludes that the period of time within which the applicant's file was dealt with was not unreasonable. |
| --- | --- |

—

an infringement of the concept of a reasonable period of time and distortion of the file, inasmuch as the Tribunal refers, in its statement of the facts, to a medical examination which never took place and then concludes that the period of time within which the applicant's file was dealt with was not unreasonable.

---