Order — ECLI:EU:T:2011:94
Date: 2011-03-17
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Appeals Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Appeal - unfounded;Staff cases

Summary 1. Officials — Decision adversely affecting an official — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Scope (Staff Regulations, Art. 25) 2. Officials — Act adversely affecting an official — Definition — Rejection of an application for 100% reimbursement of medical expenses following refusal to recognise the existence of a serious illness — Not included (Staff Regulations, Art. 90) 1. The requirement to state reasons is intended, on the one hand, to provide the person concerned with details sufficient to allow him to ascertain whether the decision is well founded or whether it is vitiated by an error which will allow its legality to be contested and, on the other, to enable the Court to review the legality of the decision. The relevant statement of reasons for assessing the legality of the contested decision is also that given in the decision rejecting the complaint. (see paras 32-33) See: 26 November 1981, 195/80 Michel v Parliament, para. 22; 8 September 2009, T‑404/06 P ETF v Landgren, para. 108; 9 December 2009, T‑377/08 P Commission v Birkhoff, para. 64; 21 June 2010, T‑284/09 P Meister v OHIM, para. 21 2. In the absence of new information, the rejection of an application for 100% reimbursement of medical expenses submitted by an official following the appointing authority’s refusal to recognise that he is suffering from a serious illness entitling him to such reimbursement under Article 72 of the Staff Regulations is not an act adversely affecting him in that it does not in any way alter his legal position. (see para. 45) See: 9 September 2008, T‑143/08 Marcuccio v Commission, paras 39-41, and T‑144/08 Marcuccio v Commission, paras 32-34, confirmed by judgments of 9 December 2009 in C‑513/08 P Marcuccio v Commission, para. 53, and in C‑528/08 P Marcuccio v Commission, para. 44