Case T-199/01: Action brought on 28 August 2001 by Pierrette Dessy against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-11-10
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action for annulment (EU), pharmaceutical product, retired person, social-security benefit

10.11.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 317/31

that his name was not on that list and against the
Commission’s decision not to promote him to grade A4
under the 2000 promotions procedure;

Pleas in law and main arguments

— annul any related and/or subsequent decision;

— annul the Commission’s implied decision rejecting the
complaint submitted by the applicant under Article 90(2)
of the Staff Regulations on 27 December 2000;

— annul the 2000 A4 promotions procedure with regard to

the applicant;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs of the action.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant puts forward the same
pleas in law as in Case T-188/01.

Action brought on 10 August 2001 by André Hecq against
the Commission of the European Communities

The applicant disputes two decisions of the office responsible
for settling claims under the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme
refusing to reimburse at 100 % of the cost of certain medical
services that he submits are linked to the serious illness from
which his wife is suffering. In support of his action he alleges
breach of Article 72(1) of the Staff Regulations and manifest
error of assessment.

Action brought on 28 August 2001 by Pierrette Dessy
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-199/01)

(2001/C 317/62)

(Language of the case: French)

(Case T-191/01)

(2001/C 317/61)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 28 August 2001 by Pierrette Dessy,
resident in Ispra (Italy), represented by Olivier Slusny, lawyer,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.

(Language of the case: French)

The applicant claims that the Court should:

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 10 August 2001 by André Hecq,
resident in Mondercange (Luxembourg), represented by Carlos
Mourato, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decisions of 13 October 2000 and 6 November
2000 of the Brussels office responsible for settling claims
as well as the implied decision of 12 May 2001 of the
Appointing Authority;

— order the defendant to reimburse to the applicant the
sum of 38,84 Euros plus default interest from 13 October
2000;

— order the defendant to reimburse to the applicant the
sum of 26,51 Euros plus default interest from 6 Novem-
ber 2000;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the case.

— declare unlawful and annul the implied decision to reject

the applicant’s complaint of 30 January 2001;

— rule that the applicant has the right, in accordance with
the provisions of Article 72 of the Staff Regulations, to
100 % reimbursement for prescribed products;

— order the Appointing Authority to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a former Community official, presently in
retirement, objects to the refusal of the administration to
classify as reimbursable certain pharmaceutical products that
she needs for the treatment of a serious illness, within the
meaning of Article 72(1) of the Staff Regulations, considering
them to be ‘inefficacious’ as regards the condition from which
she is suffering.

C 317/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.11.2001

In support of her claims, the applicant submits:

— Arbitrariness and failure to state reasons, in that, first, the
administration changed its mind as to whether certain
medicines were reimbursable and, secondly, the principle
of the doctor’s free choice of medicines was disregarded
in this case;

— Breach of the principle of legitimate expectation and of
the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.

principle of equal treatment and freedom of movement for
workers. The conversion to the Community pension system of
the pension rights acquired by the applicant in Austria before
her entry into service constitutes, in her view, discrimination
based on grade, sex, age and nationality.

Action brought on 5 September 2001 by Maria-Luise
Lindorfer against the Council of the European Union

(Case T-204/01)

(2001/C 317/63)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 5 September 2001 by Maria-Luise Lindorfer,
resident in Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden,
Laure Levi and Dominique Dugois, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the defendant’s decision of 3 November 2000
fixing at 5 years, 5 months and 8 days the number of
years of pensionable service to be taken into account for
the applicant’s Community pension following the transfer
of her pension rights acquired in Austria prior to her
entry into the service of the European Communities and,
in so far as necessary, annul the Council decision, dated
31 May 2001, to reject the applicant’s complaint of
2 February 2001;

Action brought on 6 September 2001 by André Ronsse
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-205/01)

(2001/C 317/64)

(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 6 September 2001 by André
Ronsse, resident in Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot,
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision taken on 9 November 2000 by the
Appointing Authority concerning the reimbursement of
the household allowance considered by the Appointing
Authority to have been overpaid since 1 January 1994;

— annul the decision, taken by the Appointing Authority on
23 November 2000, to recover the household allowance
previously
1994
since
(22 433,07 Euros) from the applicant’s monthly pension,
in 30 monthly payments of 770 Euros from December
2000 to May 2003 inclusive and a monthly payment of
15,89 Euros in June 2003;

overpaid

January

1

— order the defendant to fix again, on an amended legal
basis devoid of all illegality, the years of pensionable
service to be taken into account for the applicant’s
Community pension following the transfer of her pension
rights acquired in Austria;

— in any event, whatever the decision on the substance of
the case, authorise his repayment arrangements to be
made more flexible than those presently imposed on him,
with average monthly payments of a maximum of
385 Euros;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

— order, in any event, the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of her action, the applicant raises an objection to
the legality of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII
to the Staff
Regulations and Articles 10.3 and 10.4 of the Council decision
fixing the general provisions for giving effect to Article 11(2).
According to the applicant, those articles, which form the legal
basis of the contested measure, constitute a breach of the

The applicant in the present case, a retired official, states that,
according to the Appointing Authority, he unduly received
household allowance from 1 January 1994 to 31 October
2000 and that, on the basis of Article 85, the Staff Regulations,
it is seeking to recover the amount overpaid.