Case T-59/01: Action brought on 13 March 2001 by Albert Nardone against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-06-16
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action for annulment (EU), asbestos, disability insurance, regulations for civil servants

16.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 173/33

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

The applicant claims that the Court should:

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 30 January 2001

in Case T-49/00: Industria Pugliese Olive in Salamoia Erbe
Aromatiche Snc (Iposea) v Commission of the European
Communities (1)

(Common Customs Tariff — Regulation amending the
combined nomenclature — Action for annulment — Inad-
missibility)

(2001/C 173/59)

(Language of the case: Italian)

In Case T-49/00: Industria Pugliese Olive in Salamoia Erbe
Aromatiche Snc (Iposea), established at Cerignola (Italy),
represented by A. Guarino, of the Rome Bar, and A. Lorang,
the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
of
Luxembourg at the latter’s Chambers, 2 Rue des Dahlias, v
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Schie-
ferer and M. Moretto) — application for annulment of
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2626/1999 of 13 December
to Council Regulation (EEC)
1999 amending Annex I
No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on
the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1999 L 321, p. 3) — the
Court of First
Instance (Second Chamber), composed of:
A.W.H. Meij, President, and A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges;
H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 30 January 2001, the
operative part of which is as follows:

1.

2.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

The applicant is to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.

Action brought on 13 March 2001 by Albert Nardone
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-59/01)

(2001/C 173/60)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 13 March 2001 by Albert Nardone,
residing at Piétrain (Belgium), represented by Juan Ramon
Iturriagagoitia Bassas, avocat.

— annul the express decision of the appointing authority of
15 December 2000, in so far as that decision rejects the
applicant’s request of 23 May 2000 for the grant of
an invalidity pension in accordance with the second
paragraph of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations of
officials;

— order the grant of an invalidity pension calculated in
accordance with the second paragraph of Article 78 of
the Staff Regulations of officials;

— alternatively, order, by interim judgment, the setting-up
of an invalidity committee as provided for in Article 53
of the Staff Regulations of officials, with the task of
examining whether the applicant is suffering from total
permanent invalidity within the meaning of Article 78 of
the Staff Regulations of officials;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant entered the service of the Communities in
Luxembourg in 1963. Upon being transferred to the Com-
mission in Brussels in 1970, he was assigned to work in the
Berlaymont building. According to the applicant, the working
conditions in the workshops at first basement level and
mezzanine level in that building were insalubrious and charac-
terised by a dusty atmosphere, caused by asbestos dust
discovered at a later date.

In October 1981 the applicant decided to submit his resig-
nation. Following his resignation, the applicant’s physical state
was such that he could not perform any occupational activities
whatsoever.

In November 1999 the applicant, who had previously brought
proceedings seeking official recognition of his occupational
disease and compensation for the damage which he alleges to
have suffered, submitted a request under Article 90 of the Staff
Regulations seeking the grant of an invalidity pension pursuant
to Article 78 of the Staff Regulations. The Commission refused
that request, taking the view that it was not the applicant’s
invalidity which had caused him to cease working for the
Communities.

The applicant claims that the Commission committed an abuse
of process when adopting a decision which should have been
taken by an invalidity committee in accordance with the Staff
Regulations, and pleads that the Commission was under a duty
to afford assistance and that he was entitled to the benefit of
working conditions which respect the health, safety and dignity
of the employee, as well as the right to proper administration.