Case T-257/02: Action brought on 27 August 2002 by "K" against the Court of Justice of the European Communities
Date: 2002-11-09
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union, European official, action for annulment (EU), asbestos, indemnification, occupational disease

9.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 274/27

Action brought on 27 August 2002 by ‘K’ against the
Court of Justice of the European Communities

Action brought on 10 September 2002 by Hendrikus
Boukes against the European Parliament

(Case T-257/02)

(2002/C 274/48)

(Language of the case: French)

(Case T-258/02)

(2002/C 274/49)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Court of
the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 27 August 2002 by ‘K’,
represented by Juan Ramón Iturriagagoitia Bassas, lawyer.

Justice of

The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

— annul the decision taken by the appointing authority on
14 May 2002, notified 27 May 2002, concerning the
claim for compensation for non-material loss and damage
of any kind suffered by the applicant as a result of disease;

— order the defendant to pay the applicant, by way of
compensation for the damage she has suffered and will
in future suffer, the sum of EUR 350 000, subject to all
necessary reservations, together with default interest at
the rate of 10 % per annum from 4 October 1999 until
the date of payment;

An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
10 September 2002 by Hendrikus Boukes, domiciled in
Waldbredimus (Luxembourg), represented by Eric Boigelot,
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision taken by the Secretary-General of the
European Parliament, Julian Priestley, on 4 January 2002
dismissing the applicant’s request of 4 October 2001
concerning the recognition of his marriage by the AIPN;

— annul the implied decision rejecting the applicant’s com-
plaint, brought in accordance with Article 90(2) of the
Staff Regulations on 27 February 2002 and registered on
1 March 2002, to which the European Parliament has
still not replied.

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

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an official of the Court of Justice, challenges
that institution’s refusal
to compensate her for the non-
material damage allegedly suffered as a result of her occu-
pational disease, which has been recognised on the basis of
Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and for which she has
received compensation.

The pleas in law put forward in support of this action are
similar to those put forward in Case T-255/02 H v Court of
Justice.

The applicant in the present case challenges the refusal by the
AIPN to take account of the formalisation of his partnership,
treated as a civil marriage under Netherlands law and which
legally records and recognises the family life that he leads in
the context of a stable relationship with his partner, for the
purpose of having it treated in the same way as marriage under
the Staff Regulations.

In support of the forms of order sought, the applicant claims:

— breach of Article F(1), and (2) of the Treaty on the

European Union and Article 3(2) EC;

— breach of Article 1a(1) and the second paragraph of
Article 27 of the Staff Regulations and the provisions
of the Staff Regulations governing remuneration and
reimbursement of expenses, allowances and pension
scheme;

— breach of Articles 7, 9 and 21 of

the Charter of

Fundamental Rights of the European Union;