Case T-397/03: Action brought on 10 December 2003 by the Fédération de l'Hospitalisation Privée ("FHP") against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-02-21
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, France, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, complaint to the Commission, medical institution, public financing, public service

21.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 47/29

Pleas in law and main arguments

— so far as necessary, also annul the decisions against which

the complaint was brought, namely:

The applicant, a former official of the Commission, worked
for several years in the Berlaymont building which was at the
In 1996, the applicant
time contaminated with asbestos.
sought recognition of her illness as an occupational disease
and, in 1998, she requested that a medical committee be
consulted in accordance with Article 21 of the Rules on
Sickness Insurance for Officials of the European Communities.
That medial committee initially adopted a majority opinion in
2000 but, following a complaint from the applicant, the
defendant decided to refer the matter back to it. By letter of
7 October 2003, the Commission informed the applicant that
the medical committee had lodged its opinion. By the same
letter, the Commission informed the applicant that it con-
firmed its decision not to recognise the applicant’s medical
complaint as being occupational in origin. By letters of 17 and
27 October 2003, the Commission charged to the applicant
part of the fees and expenses of the members of the medical
committee.

In support of her claims, the applicant alleges irregularity of
the opinion of the medical committee and of the decisions and
acts relating thereto, breach of the duty to have regard for the
welfare of officials as regards the decision concerning the fees
and expenses, breach of the principle of sound administration,
misuse of powers and breach of legitimate expectations.

— the decision of the Commission mpt to take any
steps to rectify any errors in counting committed
during the 2002 staff committee elections to elect
the Brussels local staff committee;

— the decision communicated on 10 January 2003 by
the chairperson of the electoral bureau, following
two requests submitted by the applicant, dated
23 December 2002;

— order the Commission to pay EUR 29 635 by way of

damages;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his application, the applicant alleges manifest
error of assessment, breach of the duty to have regard for the
welfare of officials and of the principle of sound administration
and infringement of Article 1 of Annex II
to the Staff
Regulations.

Action brought on 10 December 2003 by Joseph Vanhel-
lemont against the Commission of the European Com-
munities

(Case T-396/03)

(2004/C 47/57)

(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 10 December 2003 by Joseph
Vanhellemont, residing in Brussels, represented by Lucas
Vogel, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision adopted by the appointing authority
on 26 August 2003 and notified on 5 September 2003,
rejecting the complaint made by the applicant on 1 April
2003 seeking the annulment of a decision of the chairper-
son of the electoral bureau of 10 January 2003 who, after
two requests of 23 December 2002, refused to recount
the votes cast in the elections for the Brussels local staff
committee, held between the 2 and 14 December 2002,

Action brought on 10 December 2003 by the Fédération
de l’Hospitalisation Privée (‘FHP’) against the Commission
of the European Communities

(Case T-397/03)

(2004/C 47/58)

(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 10 December 2003 by the Fédér-
ation de l’Hospitalisation Privée (‘FHP’), established in Paris,
represented by Silvestre Tandeau de Marsac, avocat.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare that the Commission of the European Communi-
ties has failed to act with regard to the complaint filed
under number A/40342-H3;

C 47/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.2.2004

— Declare that the Commission of the European Communi-
ties failed to fulfil
its obligations under the Treaty
establishing the European Community by failing to
adopt a decision following the complaint lodged by the
applicant on 8 December 2000;

— Order the Commission of the European Communities to
pay the costs incurred by the applicant, amounting to a
minimum of EUR 25 000.

Pleas in law and main arguments

it

is acting on behalf of

The applicant states that
two
organisations which on 8 December 2000 had lodged a
complaint with the Commission concerning the methods of
public-sector hospital financing by the French State and, more
specifically, an integrated plan in two protocols signed on 13
and 14 March 2000, under which the French Minister for
employment and solidarity undertook to procure additional
funding for those hospitals. According to the applicant, the
Commission has never stated its position on the statements
made in that complaint.

In support of its action, the applicant alleges infringement of
Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty and of Council Regulation
(EC) No 659/19991 (1). It states that the period of 39 months
which has passed since the complaint was lodged exceeds the
reasonable time within which the Commission has to adopt a
decision.

(1) 1 Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying
down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC
Treaty, OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.

Action brought on 13 December 2003 by Arnaldo Lucac-
cioni against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties

(Case T-399/03)

(2004/C 47/59)

(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 December 2003 by Arnaldo
Lucaccioni, residing in St-Leonard-on-Sea (United Kingdom),
represented by Juan Ramón Iturriagagoitia Bassas and Karine
Delvolvé, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Commission of 10 March 2003
in implement of the judgment of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities of 26 February
2003 in Case T-212/01;

— annul the report of 25 October 2000 of the doctor in
charge of the applicant’s case, notified to the applicant on
10 March 2003, and the task entrusted to him;

— order the Commission to pay the costs;

— in the alternative, declare that the report of 25 October
2000 must be disregarded in the procedure considering
the aggravation of the applicant’s occupational disease
and, if necessary, in the procedure for reopening a request
that the disease be recognised as an occupational disease.

Pleas in law and main arguments

On 7 June 2000, the applicant, a former official of the
Commission who was granted retirement on the ground of
total permanent invalidity as a result of an occupational
disease, submitted a request on the basis of an alleged
aggravation of his occupational disease. By decision notified to
the applicant by letter of 16 November 2000, the Commission
suspended the procedure provided for by Article 22 of the
Rules on the insurance of officials of the European Communi-
ties against the risk of accident and of occupational disease
and decided not to take action on the applicant’s request. As a
result of an action brought by the applicant, that decision of
the Commission was annulled by the Court of First Instance
by judgment of 26 February 2003 (1). On 10 March 2003, the
Commission wrote to the applicant following the judgment
delivered by the Court in order to transmit to him of the report
of the doctor in charge of his case and to inform him that it
could not grant his request because what was involved was a
draft decision as referred to in Article 21 of the Rules.

By the present application, the applicant seeks the annulment
of the decision contained in the letter of 10 March 2003 and
of the doctor’s report. In support of his claims, he alleges failure
to comply with the judgment of the Court of 26 February 2003
in Case T-212/01, breach of the rights of defence, material
errors, and breach of the duty to state reasons.

(1) Case T-212/01, published in OJ 2001 C 331, p. 25. Judgment

Notice in OJ 2003 C 112, p. 31.