# C_2005115EN.01003302.xml

| 14.5.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 115/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 115/33

---

Action brought on 28 February 2005 by José Jiménez Martinez against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-115/05)

(2005/C 115/60)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 28 February 2005 by José Jiménez Martinez, residing in Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | annul the Invalidity Committee's decision of 21 April 2004 refusing the applicant's request of 19 January 2004 to be declared invalid, notified by memo of 27 April 2004, |
| --- | --- |

1.

annul the Invalidity Committee's decision of 21 April 2004 refusing the applicant's request of 19 January 2004 to be declared invalid, notified by memo of 27 April 2004,

| 2. | annul the Invalidity Committee's decision of 22 July 2004 granting a declaration of invalidity, in so far as the effect of the declaration of invalidity is not retroactive to 21 April 2004, |
| --- | --- |

2.

annul the Invalidity Committee's decision of 22 July 2004 granting a declaration of invalidity, in so far as the effect of the declaration of invalidity is not retroactive to 21 April 2004,

| 3. | grant the applicant compensation for material and non-material damage assessed on an equitable basis at EUR 222 568, subject to increase in the course of the proceedings, |
| --- | --- |

3.

grant the applicant compensation for material and non-material damage assessed on an equitable basis at EUR 222 568, subject to increase in the course of the proceedings,

| 4. | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in this case objects to the defendant's decision to grant his declaration of invalidity for three years from 1 September 2004 without providing for retroactive effect to 21 April 2004, the date on which the Invalidity Committee took an initial adverse decision in regard to him.

In support of his claims, the applicant pleads:

| — | infringement of Article 7 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations and of the rules relating to the operation of the Invalidity Committee. He maintains in that regard that two of the three doctors comprising the Invalidity Committee had no knowledge either of his illness or of his state of health, |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of Article 7 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations and of the rules relating to the operation of the Invalidity Committee. He maintains in that regard that two of the three doctors comprising the Invalidity Committee had no knowledge either of his illness or of his state of health,

| — | in this case, the Committee made a manifest error of assessment regarding the nature of his illness. It is stated in that regard that the Invalidity Committee took no account whatsoever of the existence of an illness different from sleeping disorders, namely the chronic fatigue previously diagnosed, |
| --- | --- |

—

in this case, the Committee made a manifest error of assessment regarding the nature of his illness. It is stated in that regard that the Invalidity Committee took no account whatsoever of the existence of an illness different from sleeping disorders, namely the chronic fatigue previously diagnosed,

| — | failure to comply with the obligation to state reasons, |
| --- | --- |

—

failure to comply with the obligation to state reasons,

| — | infringement of Articles 53 and 78 of the Staff Regulations and of Articles 13 to 18 of Annex VIII to those regulations, |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of Articles 53 and 78 of the Staff Regulations and of Articles 13 to 18 of Annex VIII to those regulations,

| — | breach of the principle of good administration and sound management and breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials. |
| --- | --- |

—

breach of the principle of good administration and sound management and breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.

---