# C_2020068EN.01004901.xml

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/49

---

Action brought on 31 December 2019 — UW v Commission

(Case T-880/19)

(2020/C 68/58)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: UW (represented by: F. Quraishi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | convene the parties if necessary; |
| --- | --- |

—

convene the parties if necessary;

| — | admit this action as procedurally valid; |
| --- | --- |

—

admit this action as procedurally valid;

| — | on the merits see the action as justified; |
| --- | --- |

—

on the merits see the action as justified;

| — | reverse or, alternatively, annul the contested rejection decision of 2 October 2019 adopted by [confidential] (1) in its capacity as the appointing authority (AA) and declare complaint No R/352/19 of 27 May 2019 to be justified and consequently, reverse or, alternatively, annul the original decision adopted on 27 February 2019 on grounds of invalidity as regards the decision-making process, improper referral to the invalidity committee, a formal irregularity, lack of legal basis, failure to state reasons or, alternatively, incorrect reasoning, abuse or misuse of powers or, alternatively, any other basis to be considered; |
| --- | --- |

—

reverse or, alternatively, annul the contested rejection decision of 2 October 2019 adopted by [confidential] (1) in its capacity as the appointing authority (AA) and declare complaint No R/352/19 of 27 May 2019 to be justified and consequently, reverse or, alternatively, annul the original decision adopted on 27 February 2019 on grounds of invalidity as regards the decision-making process, improper referral to the invalidity committee, a formal irregularity, lack of legal basis, failure to state reasons or, alternatively, incorrect reasoning, abuse or misuse of powers or, alternatively, any other basis to be considered;

| — | consequently, order the reintegration of the applicant in her last post occupied with [confidential] or, alternatively, an equivalent post and retroactively re-establish all of her rights; |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, order the reintegration of the applicant in her last post occupied with [confidential] or, alternatively, an equivalent post and retroactively re-establish all of her rights;

| — | order any and all measures of investigation, in particular, a medical report from an independent medical expert for the purposes of assessing whether the applicant’s state of health corresponds to the performance of her duties in the last post occupied with [confidential] or, alternatively, any other post corresponding to her grade and her qualifications or, alternatively, any other post commensurate with her strengths and abilities with the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

order any and all measures of investigation, in particular, a medical report from an independent medical expert for the purposes of assessing whether the applicant’s state of health corresponds to the performance of her duties in the last post occupied with [confidential] or, alternatively, any other post corresponding to her grade and her qualifications or, alternatively, any other post commensurate with her strengths and abilities with the Commission;

| — | order the AA party to pay all of the costs and expenses of the present proceedings, inter alia, the costs relating to the expert opinion; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the AA party to pay all of the costs and expenses of the present proceedings, inter alia, the costs relating to the expert opinion;

| — | see that all other rights, pleas in law, dues and actions be reserved to the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

see that all other rights, pleas in law, dues and actions be reserved to the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging an irregularity in the decision of the AA of 27 February 2019 which erroneously mentions a decision of the AA of 31 March 2016 to make a referral to the invalidity committee, whereas the referral to that committee was made on 26 June 2018, which vitiates the contested decision of 27 February 2019 due to an irregularity which must lead to that decision being reversed or annulled. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging an irregularity in the decision of the AA of 27 February 2019 which erroneously mentions a decision of the AA of 31 March 2016 to make a referral to the invalidity committee, whereas the referral to that committee was made on 26 June 2018, which vitiates the contested decision of 27 February 2019 due to an irregularity which must lead to that decision being reversed or annulled.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an improper referral made to the invalidity committee following the withdrawal of the decision of 9 November 2017 by decision of 30 April 2018 of the AA. Following the withdrawal of the decision of 9 November 2017 which placed the applicant on total permanent invalidity, the applicant should have undergone a check-up at the medical service. However, that was not the case and that irregularity should lead to the contested decision being reversed or annulled. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an improper referral made to the invalidity committee following the withdrawal of the decision of 9 November 2017 by decision of 30 April 2018 of the AA. Following the withdrawal of the decision of 9 November 2017 which placed the applicant on total permanent invalidity, the applicant should have undergone a check-up at the medical service. However, that was not the case and that irregularity should lead to the contested decision being reversed or annulled.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging an improper referral made to the invalidity committee on 26 June 2018 where the conditions for referral were not fulfilled in particular the condition relating to the duration of the period of illness preceding the referral. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging an improper referral made to the invalidity committee on 26 June 2018 where the conditions for referral were not fulfilled in particular the condition relating to the duration of the period of illness preceding the referral.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging an irregular composition of the invalidity committee and that the conclusions reached were not well-founded. The applicant submits that doctor [confidential] was harassing her and therefore considers it inconceivable to submit to him the examination of her state of health. Thus, the lack of impartiality of a member of the invalidity committee constitutes an irregularity which vitiates the decision to place the applicant on invalidity. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging an irregular composition of the invalidity committee and that the conclusions reached were not well-founded. The applicant submits that doctor [confidential] was harassing her and therefore considers it inconceivable to submit to him the examination of her state of health. Thus, the lack of impartiality of a member of the invalidity committee constitutes an irregularity which vitiates the decision to place the applicant on invalidity.

---

(1)  Confidential data removed.

---