# C_2017070EN.01002401.xml

| 6.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/24

---

Action brought on 5 January 2017 — RI v Council

(Case T-9/17)

(2017/C 070/33)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: RI (Paris, France) (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Council’s appointing authority of 8 February 2016 refusing to recognise the applicant’s invalidity as arising from an occupational disease within the meaning of paragraph 5 of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Council’s appointing authority of 8 February 2016 refusing to recognise the applicant’s invalidity as arising from an occupational disease within the meaning of paragraph 5 of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union;

| — | order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and misinterpretation of the concept of an occupational disease by the Council’s Invalidity Committee and appointing authority. The applicant contests, in particular, the committee’s findings that:






  — | Carpal Tunnel Syndrome cannot be recognised as an occupational disease; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and misinterpretation of the concept of an occupational disease by the Council’s Invalidity Committee and appointing authority. The applicant contests, in particular, the committee’s findings that:

—

Carpal Tunnel Syndrome cannot be recognised as an occupational disease;

| — | it is not the applicant’s Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, but rather the algoneurodystrophy (complex regional pain syndrome) which has developed following a surgical operation on her left hand, that is the source of her inability to return to work. |
| --- | --- |

—

it is not the applicant’s Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, but rather the algoneurodystrophy (complex regional pain syndrome) which has developed following a surgical operation on her left hand, that is the source of her inability to return to work.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a failure to fulfil the obligation to provide a statement of reasons, in that the Invalidity Committee did not provide an explanation to the requisite legal standard as regards the reasons that led it to depart from the earlier medical reports clearly showing the occupational origin of the applicant’s illness, described as ‘Carpal Tunnel Syndrome complicated by algoneurodystrophy’. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a failure to fulfil the obligation to provide a statement of reasons, in that the Invalidity Committee did not provide an explanation to the requisite legal standard as regards the reasons that led it to depart from the earlier medical reports clearly showing the occupational origin of the applicant’s illness, described as ‘Carpal Tunnel Syndrome complicated by algoneurodystrophy’.

---