# C_2019230EN.01006101.xml

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/61

---

Action brought on 17 May 2019 — BU v Commission

(Case T-308/19)

(2019/C 230/75)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: BU (represented by: E. Bonanni, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 11 January 2019 by which the Commission decided to create a new medical committee to give a new opinion on the requested recognition of aggravation of the applicant’s occupational disease; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 11 January 2019 by which the Commission decided to create a new medical committee to give a new opinion on the requested recognition of aggravation of the applicant’s occupational disease;

| — | order that the decision on the requested recognition of aggravation must be taken on the basis of the opinion already expressed by the previous medical committee on 8 January 2014, derogating from Article 12 of the Rules on the insurance of officials of the European Communities against the risk of accident and of occupational disease, in force prior to 1 January 2006 (‘the Rules’), as recognised by amended mandate of 11 January 2019, for the purposes of ordering the Commission to pay EUR 639 4[2]1.37 (of which EUR 98 372,51 has already been paid) on the basis of the allowance provided for in Article 14 of the Rules, or the provision establishing an identical or similar obligation; |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the decision on the requested recognition of aggravation must be taken on the basis of the opinion already expressed by the previous medical committee on 8 January 2014, derogating from Article 12 of the Rules on the insurance of officials of the European Communities against the risk of accident and of occupational disease, in force prior to 1 January 2006 (‘the Rules’), as recognised by amended mandate of 11 January 2019, for the purposes of ordering the Commission to pay EUR 639 4[2]1.37 (of which EUR 98 372,51 has already been paid) on the basis of the allowance provided for in Article 14 of the Rules, or the provision establishing an identical or similar obligation;

| — | order the Commission to pay EUR 5 000 for each month of delay in adopting the measure; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay EUR 5 000 for each month of delay in adopting the measure;

| — | order the Commission to pay compensation in the amount of EUR 100 000 for unlawfully issuing Mandate No 3 of 25 January 2018, contrary to the judgments in Cases T-551/16 and T-212/01; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay compensation in the amount of EUR 100 000 for unlawfully issuing Mandate No 3 of 25 January 2018, contrary to the judgments in Cases T-551/16 and T-212/01;

| — | order the Commission to pay compensation in the amount of EUR 50 000 for disapplication of the fee scale for doctors who have been or will be appointed; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay compensation in the amount of EUR 50 000 for disapplication of the fee scale for doctors who have been or will be appointed;

| — | order the Commission to pay compensation in the amount of EUR 100 000 for the unjustifiable delay in completing the administrative stage of the proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay compensation in the amount of EUR 100 000 for the unjustifiable delay in completing the administrative stage of the proceedings;

| — | order the Commission to pay compensation in the amount of EUR 1 000 000 for the disgraceful behaviour of Dr AB, a non-independent direct employee of the appointing authority, in relation to his questionable conduct as described in the application; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay compensation in the amount of EUR 1 000 000 for the disgraceful behaviour of Dr AB, a non-independent direct employee of the appointing authority, in relation to his questionable conduct as described in the application;

| — | lastly, order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

lastly, order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant claims, in essence, that the Commission should be reproached for not having taken the decision to pay him the amount of EUR 639 421,37 (of which EUR 98 372,51 has already been paid) which constitutes the allowance provided for under Article 14 of the Rules, following the opinion of the medical committee of 8 January 2014 in connection with his request of 7 June 2000 for recognition of aggravation of his occupational disease.

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU and of the obligation to comply with final judgments, in so far as the Commission did not comply with the judgments in Cases T-212/01 and T-551/16 with respect to the erroneous confusion of invalidity per se with the allowance provided for in Article 14 of the Rules. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU and of the obligation to comply with final judgments, in so far as the Commission did not comply with the judgments in Cases T-212/01 and T-551/16 with respect to the erroneous confusion of invalidity per se with the allowance provided for in Article 14 of the Rules.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging misuse of powers in the present case. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging misuse of powers in the present case.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and of the case-law of the European Union regarding the proceedings of the medical committee. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and of the case-law of the European Union regarding the proceedings of the medical committee.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle that the duration of proceedings must be reasonable. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle that the duration of proceedings must be reasonable.

---