Case T-182/04: Action brought on 17 May 2004 by Daniel Van der Spree against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-07-10
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action for annulment (EU), professional career, regulations for civil servants, report, staff assessment

C 179/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.7.2004

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the appointing authority rejecting his

request;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action was brought by the applicant as a result of the fact
that, on 1 April 2003, he submitted a request to the Commis-
sion in the following terms: (a) if a medical report drawn up by
Dr M.P. Simonnet on the occasion of the medical check up
which the Commission required him to undergo on 20 June
2002 exists, to have a certified copy thereof sent to him or to a
doctor designated by him and, in the latter case, that he should
be informed thereof in writing; (b) if the medical report does
not exist, to be informed of that fact in writing; (c) if there is
any reason to deny the requests at (a) and (b) above, to be
informed thereof in writing.

Following the implied rejection of the request, the applicant
brought the present action.

In support of his arguments, the applicant puts forward the
following pleas in law:

Breach of the law inasmuch as the official is entitled to have
access to all data relating to him drawn up by agents of the
defendant in the course of their duties and in their possession,
and thus including the medical report.

Breach of the applicant's right to health, in particular to his
physical and mental health and of the institution's duty to have
regard for his welfare.

European Communities on 17 May 2004 by Daniel Van der
Spree, residing at Overijse (Belgium), represented by S. Orlandi,
A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers, with an address
for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision establishing finally the applicant's career
development review covering the period from 1 July 2001
to 31 December 2002;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

In support of his action, the applicant pleads, first, breach of
Articles 26 and 43 of the Staff Regulations and of the special
measures applicable to the 2001-2002 transitional appraisal
exercise. The applicant also pleads breach of the duty to state
reasons, inconsistency between the comments and the marks
awarded and manifest error of assessment. The applicant relies,
further, on infringement of the rights of the defence in that the
decision was based on an internal audit report of which the
applicant was not given notice and on alleged appraisal criteria
of which, the applicant submits, he was not informed.

Breach of the obligation to provide reasons for decisions, as
provided for in Article 25 of the Staff Regulations.

Action brought on 7 June 2004 by Microsoft Corporation
against the Commission of the European Communities

Breach of the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials,
inasmuch as the defendant had not the slightest regard for the
interest of the applicant to have access to the medical report,
or at least for such a report to be transmitted to a doctor of his
choice, in particular in light of the fact that it is impossible to
discern what interest of the service the defendant sought to
protect, quod non, by its rejection of the request and of the
complaint.

(Case T-201/04)

(2004/C 179/36)

(Language of the case: English)

Action brought on 17 May 2004 by Daniel Van der Spree
against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-182/04)

(2004/C 179/35)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 7 June 2004 by Microsoft Corpora-
tion, Washington (USA), represented by I. S. Forrester, QC, and
J.-F. Bellis, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission Decision of 24 March 2004, or, in
substantially reduce the fine

the alternative, annul or
imposed;

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the

— order the Commission to bear the costs.