Case T-154/05: Action brought on 15 April 2005 by Carmela Lo Giudice against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2005-06-25
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, abuse of power, action for annulment (EU), psychological harassment, regulations for civil servants, rights of civil servants

25.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/25

Action brought on 4 April 2005 by Federico José Garcia
Resusta against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities

Action brought on 14 April 2005 by Carlos Sanchez
Ferriz against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities

(Case T-147/05)

(2005/C 155/48)

(Language of the case: French)

(Case T-153/05)

(2005/C 155/49)

(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 4 April 2005 by Federico José
Garcia Resusta, residing in Brussels, represented by Jean Van
Rossum, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission's decision to dismiss the applicant's
request for recognition of the occupational origin of his
disease or aggravation thereof, which prevents him from
performing the tasks associated with a post in his category
and grade,

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission adopted the contested decision following the
judgment of 23 November 2004 of the Court of First Instance
in Case T-376/02 (1), which annulled the Commission's decision
of 14 January 2002 awarding the applicant an invalidity
pension.

In support of his action, the applicant alleges infringement of
the obligation to state reasons and infringement of Article 3 of
the Rules on the insurance of officials of the European Commu-
nities against the risk of accident and of occupational disease,
on the grounds that the opinion of the Medical Committee,
which decided that it had not been established sufficiently that
the aggravation of the applicant's disease had a direct connec-
tion with the duties he had performed, was contrary to the
opinion of the Invalidity Committee, which had found the
applicant's pre-existing disease had been aggravated by the
stress related to his duties.

(1) Application published in OJ 2003 C 44 of 22.2.2003, p. 37, judg-

ment published in OJ 2004 C 45 of 19.2.2005, p. 23.

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 14 April 2005 by Carlos Sanchez
Ferriz, residing in Brussels, represented by Gilles Bounéou and
Frédéric Frabetti, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. annul the evaluation exercise 2003 in relation to the appli-

cant,

2. alternatively, annul

the applicant's career development

report for the period 1.1.2003-31.12.2003;

3. order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the appli-
cant in the present case are identical to those put forward in
Cases T-43/04 and T-47/04.

Action brought on 15 April 2005 by Carmela Lo Giudice
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-154/05)

(2005/C 155/50)

(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 15 April 2005 by Carmela Lo
Giudice, residing in Strambeek Bever (Belgium), represented by
Gilles Bounéou and Frédéric Frabetti, lawyers, with an address
for service in Luxembourg.

C 155/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.6.2005

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Action brought on 18 April 2005 by Robert Steinmetz
against the Commission of the European Communities

1. annul the express decision of 18 January 2005, No 05/399,

rejecting her complaint;

2.

in so far as is necessary, annul the implied decision rejecting
the applicant's request for assistance dated 28 November
2003 and annul the implied decision rejecting the appli-
cant's request for assistance dated 23 December 2003;

3. find that the applicant was subjected to, and experienced,

psychological harassment in her job;

4. order

the defendant

to pay the applicant

the sum of
EUR 100 000 (one hundred thousand euro) in compensa-
tion for non-material damage, subject to any increases or
assessments in connection with the psychological harass-
ment, bearing in mind that the applicant's future is totally
uncertain and that her health has been badly affected;

(Case T-155/05)

(2005/C 155/51)

(Language of the case: French)

5. reserve all legal obligations, including the right to apply for
discovery of the witness examinations as described in the
IDOC's findings of 7 January 2005;

6. order the defendant to pay the costs.

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 18 April 2005 by Robert Steinmetz,
represented by Joëlle Choucroun,
residing in Luxembourg,
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an official of the Commission, lodged with her
superiors two requests for assistance, dated 28 November 2003
and 23 December 2003, in which she claimed to be the victim
of psychological harassment within her organisational unit. By
her action, she contests the rejection of her requests and of the
complaint which she lodged subsequently.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. annul the Commission's decision dated 10 January 2005 in
reply to the applicant's complaints R/376/04 of 29 April
2004 and R/857/04 of 20 August 2004;

2. order the Commission to repay EUR 26.19 to the applicant;

In support of her action, the applicant maintains that, in the
light of the number of tasks which were assigned to her by her
superior and of the number of e-mails which he sent to her, it
is indisputable that she experienced genuine psychological
harassment. The contested decisions therefore infringe Article
12 of the Staff Regulations.

3. award the applicant token compensation of one euro for the
non-material damage suffered as a result of the contested
decision;

4. order

the Commission to pay the entire costs of

the

proceedings.

in her
The rejection of her requests for assistance infringes,
view, both Article 24 of the Staff Regulations and Mr Kinnock's
proposal of 15 October 2003 concerning policy on psycholo-
gical harassment. The applicant also alleges failure to state
reasons for the decision of 18 January 2005, breach of the
principle of the prohibition of arbitrary conduct, misuse of
powers, breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate
expectations and of the rule patere legem quam ipse fecisti and
breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present case objects to the rejection by the
Appointing Authority of his claim for settlement of mission
expenses and for repayment of EUR 26.19 unduly deducted
from his salary of March 2005. In that context, he also objects
to the refusal to grant his request for assistance, submitted
under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations.