# C_2019413EN.01006301.xml

| 9.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 413/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 413/63

---

Action brought on 21 October 2019 — GW v European Court of Auditors

(Case T-709/19)

(2019/C 413/76)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: GW (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Court of Auditors

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 22 May 2019 of the European Court of Auditors rejecting the request to refer the matter to the Invalidity Committee in order to establish the development of his state of health and lay down the procedures for medical checks after invalidity; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 22 May 2019 of the European Court of Auditors rejecting the request to refer the matter to the Invalidity Committee in order to establish the development of his state of health and lay down the procedures for medical checks after invalidity;

| — | order the Court of Auditors to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Court of Auditors to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 15 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, on the ground that that article provides only for the possibility, and not the obligation, for the institution to have an official who receives an invalidity allowance periodically examined in order to ensure that he still fulfils the conditions required to receive that allowance. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 15 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, on the ground that that article provides only for the possibility, and not the obligation, for the institution to have an official who receives an invalidity allowance periodically examined in order to ensure that he still fulfils the conditions required to receive that allowance.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Conclusion No 273/15 of 25 February 2016 of the Board of Heads of Administration on medical examination following retirement on grounds of invalidity, in so far as it provides that the institution’s doctor may, exceptionally, accept a report prepared by the attending physician or defer the examination if the nature of the condition that gave rise to the invalidity does not justify an examination to assess the possibility of returning to work. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Conclusion No 273/15 of 25 February 2016 of the Board of Heads of Administration on medical examination following retirement on grounds of invalidity, in so far as it provides that the institution’s doctor may, exceptionally, accept a report prepared by the attending physician or defer the examination if the nature of the condition that gave rise to the invalidity does not justify an examination to assess the possibility of returning to work.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials. The applicant submits in this regard that the institution was required to take into account the opinions of the attending physician and the medical officer of 23 and 24 August 2017, of the psychologist of 26 September 2019 and of the attending physician of 11 October 2019. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials. The applicant submits in this regard that the institution was required to take into account the opinions of the attending physician and the medical officer of 23 and 24 August 2017, of the psychologist of 26 September 2019 and of the attending physician of 11 October 2019.

---