Case F-84/06: Action brought on 5 June 2007 — Marcuccio v Commission
Date: 2007-10-06
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, health expenditure, social security

C 235/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.10.2007

EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

Designation of the judge to replace the President of the
Civil Service Tribunal for the purpose of dealing with
applications for interim measures

Action brought on 5 June 2007 — Marcuccio v
Commission

(2007/C 235/50)

in accordance with Article 3(4) of
On 19 September 2007,
Decision 2004/752 and Article 106 of the Rules of Procedure
of the Court of First Instance, the Tribunal decided that, for the
period from 1 October 2007 to 30 September 2008, Judge Van
Raepenbusch, President of the Second Chamber, shall replace
the President of the Tribunal for the purpose of dealing with
applications for interim measures in the event of the President's
absence or his being prevented from attending.

Criteria for the assignment of cases to chambers

(2007/C 235/51)

On 19 September 2007, in accordance with Article 4 of Annex
I to the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 12 of the
Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, the Civil
Service Tribunal decided to maintain in force until 30 September
2008 the following conditions for the assignment of cases to
chambers:

— the First Chamber shall hear all cases, with the exception of
recruitment,
service,

those principally concerning questions of
assessment/promotion and final
which shall be heard by the Second Chamber;

termination of

— a number of cases shall be assigned to the Third Chamber,
regardless of the subject-matter involved, at regular intervals
to be determined at a plenary meeting of the Tribunal;

— derogations from the above rules on assignment may be
made for reasons of connections between cases and to
ensure a balanced and reasonably varied workload within
the Tribunal.

(Case F-84/06)

(2007/C 235/52)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase,
Cipressa, lawyer)

Italy)

(represented by: G.

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul the decision rejecting the claim of 20 June 2005
submitted by the applicant on 21 June 2005 to the office
responsible for settling claims of the Joint Sickness Insurance
Scheme of the European Communities;

— annul, in so far as is necessary, the statement of reimburse-

ment of 18 July 2005;

— annul, in so far as is necessary, the implied decision of the
Appointing Authority rejecting the applicant's claim of
23 December 2005;

— order

the defendant

to pay the applicant, by way of
reimbursement of the additional sum needed to make up
100 % reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by him
and in respect of which he claimed reimbursement from the
Joint Scheme on 20 June 2005, or by way of compensation
for the damage arising as a result of the defendant's unlawful
conduct in relation to the applicant, the difference between
the sum already paid to the applicant by way of reimburse-
ment of medical expenses and the total cost of the medical
expenses, namely the sum of EUR 89,56, or such other sum
as the Tribunal may consider just in respect of either or
both of those heads;

— order the defendant to pay the applicant default interest at
the rate of 10 % per annum, to be compounded annually
from 21 June 2005 until actual payment, or at a rate to be
compounded and from the starting date which the Tribunal
may consider just, on the sum of EUR 89,56 or such other
sum as the Tribunal may consider just in order to make up
100 % reimbursement of medical expenses;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

6.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/29

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his arguments,
following three pleas in law:

the applicant

relies on the

(1) absolute failure to state grounds also by reason of a total
failure to make preliminary inquiries inasmuch as it cannot
be understood why the Community did not grant the appli-
cant 100 % reimbursement of medical expenses, but only
reimbursement in part. It is clear, moreover, that the admin-
istration failed properly to open a file relating to the appli-
cant's claim of 20 June 2005, if necessary by taking into
account all of the information provided by him;

(2) infringement of the law on the basis that the applicant's
medical condition was such as to give rise, within the
meaning and for the purposes of Article 72 of the Staff
Regulations, to a right in his part to 100 % reimbursement
of medical expenses;

(3) breach of the obligation to have due regard to the welfare of
officials and of the principle of sound administration, given
that it is apparent from the matter as a whole that the
defendant
failed to have due regard to the applicant's
interests and did several acts and related deeds which, as a
result of
their grave unlawfulness and the considerable
period of time during which they were committed, consti-
tuted a breach of that obligation and principle, the latter,
moreover, being enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of
Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

The applicant, after having worked for the Commission from
1 May 2001 to 15 September 2006 as a member of the local
staff and member of the auxiliary staff under 14 successive sepa-
rate fixed-term contracts of employment, was recruited as a
member of the contract staff for the period from 16 September
2006 to 15 September 2009. Having established during the
medical visit prior
the applicant was
suffering from a sickness, the Appointing Authority applied the
proviso laid down in Article 100 of the CEOS and Article 1 of
Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

to recruitment

that

In support of her appeal, the applicant first submits that by
limiting the duration of her contract as a member of
the
contract staff, the Commission infringed the principle of stabi-
lity of the employment relationship such as it follows from the
general principles of law relating to the protection of workers.
In so far as it is necessary, she pleads that Article 88 of the
CEOS is unlawful.

In addition, the applicant claims that the proviso clause not to
grant her guaranteed benefits in respect of invalidity or death
fails to take account of the scope of Article 100 of the CEOS,
inasmuch as the administration is imposing on her a new exclu-
sion period of 5 years even though she has been in the
Commission's service since 1 May 2001. In so far as it is neces-
sary, she pleads that Article 100 of the CEOS is unlawful.

Action brought on 12 July 2007 — U v Commission

Action brought on 27 July 2007 — Doktor v Council

(Case F-69/07)

(2007/C 235/53)

Language of the case: French

(Case F-73/07)

(2007/C 235/54)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: U (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A.
Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul the Commission's decisions fixing the conditions of
employment of the applicant as a member of the contract
staff in so far as they provide for, first, the application of the
proviso laid down in Article 100 of
the Conditions of
Employment of Other Servants (‘the CEOS’) and in Article 1
of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the
European Communities
and,
(‘the
secondly, the duration of the contract to be the period from
16 September 2006 to 15 September 2009;

Staff Regulations’),

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Parties

Applicant: František Doktor (Bratislava, Slovakia) (represented by:
S. Rodrigues, R. Albelice and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— annul the decision to dismiss the applicant at the end of his
probationary period adopted on 24 October 2006 by the
appointing authority of the Council, taken together with the
decision adopted on 16 May 2007 by the appointing
authority dismissing the complaint brought by the applicant;

— direct the appointing authority as to the consequences of
the annulment of the contested decisions and in particular
the possibility of completing a second probationary period
in another service or the prolongation of the probationary
period with the transfer to a post without head-of-unit
responsibility at the end of which there would be a new
assessment of the applicant's qualifications;