# C_2013101EN.01002901.xml

| 6.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 101/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 101/29

---

Appeal brought on 11 February 2013 by BS against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 February 2012 in Case F-90/11, BS v Commission

(Case T-83/13 P)

2013/C 101/58

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: BS (Messina, Italy) (represented by C. Pollicino, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought by the appellant

Form of order sought by the appellant

| — | Declare the appeal admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the appeal admissible and well founded;

| — | Set aside the judgment under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment under appeal;

| — | Confirm that the ‘Rules on insurance against the risk of accident and occupational disease for officials of the European Communities’ cover ‘the entire cutaneous system’ and not just ‘deep cutaneous burns and pathological cutaneous scarring’; |
| --- | --- |

—

Confirm that the ‘Rules on insurance against the risk of accident and occupational disease for officials of the European Communities’ cover ‘the entire cutaneous system’ and not just ‘deep cutaneous burns and pathological cutaneous scarring’;

| — | Order that a new medical committee be set up, with the task of reviewing the appellant’s case; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order that a new medical committee be set up, with the task of reviewing the appellant’s case;

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present appeal is brought against the judgment dismissing an action seeking, in essence, annulment of the decision by which the appointing authority concluded the procedure initiated for the purpose of Article 73 of the Staff Rules of Officials of the European Union by finding that the appellant did not suffer physical or mental impairments as a result of an attack on the appellant.

The appellant relies on two grounds of appeal.

| 1. | The first ground of appeal, alleging breach of the third paragraph of Article 22 of the Rules on Insurance.
  It is submitted in this regard that, contrary to the requirements of those rules, the medical committee did not reach its decision as a collegiate body and, when it encountered a legal problem, failed to declare that it lacked competence. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The first ground of appeal, alleging breach of the third paragraph of Article 22 of the Rules on Insurance.

It is submitted in this regard that, contrary to the requirements of those rules, the medical committee did not reach its decision as a collegiate body and, when it encountered a legal problem, failed to declare that it lacked competence.

| 2. | Second ground of appeal, alleging breach of Article 73 of the European reference schedule for the assessment of physical and mental impairments for medical purposes.
  According to the appellant, by the judgment under appeal, the Civil Service Tribunal dismissed the action without providing the specific interpretation sought as to whether the Common Rules in question cover the entire cutaneous system, or only deep cutaneous burns and pathological cutaneous scarring. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second ground of appeal, alleging breach of Article 73 of the European reference schedule for the assessment of physical and mental impairments for medical purposes.

According to the appellant, by the judgment under appeal, the Civil Service Tribunal dismissed the action without providing the specific interpretation sought as to whether the Common Rules in question cover the entire cutaneous system, or only deep cutaneous burns and pathological cutaneous scarring.

---