Case T-256/02: Action brought on 27 August 2002 by "I" 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

C 274/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

9.11.2002

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

(Case T-255/02)

(2002/C 274/46)

(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 ‘H’,
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;

— order the defendant to pay the applicant, by way of
compensation for the damage he 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;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an official of the Court of Justice, challenges
that institution’s refusal to compensate him for the non-
material damage allegedly suffered as a result of his occu-
pational disease, which has been recognised in a decision taken
by the appointing authority on 31 May 2001, on the basis of
Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and under which he received
EUR 35 192,16 compensation.

In this action the applicant, on the basis of Article 288 EC
(formerly Article 215 of the EC Treaty), draws attention to the
non-material difficulties he has undergone since his exposure
to asbestos on the premises of his institution. Those difficulties
take the form inter alia of physical and psychological problems
in his relations with his colleagues and in his family and social
relationships. The applicant claims that in its decision of
14 May 2002 dismissing his request for compensation for the
non-material
loss and damage in question, the defendant
disregarded the fact that his occupational disease had non-
medical sequelæ in his life and confined itself to dealing with
one part only of his pathology.

In support of his claims the applicant alleges breach of the
principle of proper administration and of the duty to have
regard for officials’ welfare, misuse of powers in the circum-
stances of the case and breach of the Charter of Fundamental
Rights of the European Union.

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

(Case T-256/02)

(2002/C 274/47)

(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 ‘I’,
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 he 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;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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