Case F-118/07: Action brought on 22 October 2007 — Strack v Commission
Date: 2007-10-22
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, European Commission, European official, action by staff, indemnification, occupational disease, personnel administration, staff assessment

22.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/49

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant, an official in step 4 of
Grade AD 12,
invokes three pleas in law, the first of which
alleges the illegality of the General Provisions for Implementing
Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations (and more
particularly of Article 7(3)), and, if need be, the illegality of that
provision of those regulations.

The second plea in law alleges breach of Article 3 of Council
Regulation (EC) No 1103/97 of 17 June 1997 on certain provi-
sions relating to the introduction of the euro (OJ 1997 L 162,
p. 1).

the applicant suffered between 1 November 2006 and
31 December 2006 as a result of unlawful conduct on the
part of
the
Commission's decisions to the contrary of 12 January 2007,
26 February 2007 and 20 July 2007;

the Commission and annul

to that extent

— Order the defendant to pay interest for delayed payment on
the amounts due under the above heads of claim, for the
period from 26 February 2007 to the date on which
payment is actually made, at a rate of 2 % per year above
the main refinancing operations rate fixed by the European
Central Bank for the period in question;

The third plea in law alleges breach of the principles of legal
certainty, equal treatment and non-discrimination.

— Order the Commission of the European Communities to

pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Action brought on 22 October 2007 — Strack v
Commission

(Case F-118/07)

(2007/C 315/94)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Guido Strack (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: H.
Tettenborn, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should

— Order the defendant to pay the applicant damages in the
amount of EUR 1 000, for non-material damage, including
damage to his health, in the period from 8 September 2006
to 7 October 2006 caused to him by the fact that, until the
latter date, the Commission had failed to adopt a lawful deci-
sion on his application of 7 March 2005 for a finding that
in nature and annul to that
his illness was occupational
extent
to the contrary of
12 January 2007, 26 February 2007 and 20 July 2007;

the Commission's decisions

— Order the defendant to pay the applicant damages in the
amount of at least EUR 10 000 for material damage and
non-material damage, including damage to his health which

relates,

in particular,

In support of his claim for damages, the applicant relies on the
fact that the Commission and the European Anti-Fraud Office
(OLAF) committed a large number of administrative errors and
unlawful acts in regard to him in the years from 2000 to 2006.
to his work environment and
That
mobbing in the workplace, the treatment of his whistle-blowing,
the way in which the procedures for assessments and promo-
tions were carried out,
the unlawful communication of his
personal data, obstruction of his attempts to obtain an explana-
tion for, and proof of, those infringements of the law and the
circumstances surrounding the unlawful and delayed processing
of his applications under Articles 73 and 78 of the Staff Regula-
tions of Officials of the European Communities (Staff Regula-
tions)

The applicant claims that the defendant thereby infringed the
rules concerning the protection of health, Article 255 EC, Arti-
cles 1, 3, 8 and Article 41 et seq of the Charter of Fundamental
Rights, Articles 8 and 13 of
the European Convention on
Human Rights, Regulations Nos 1049/2001 and 45/2001, Arti-
cles 11a, 12, 22a, 22b, 24, 25, 26, 26a, 43, 45, 73 and 78 of
instruments on the basis of
the Staff Regulations, the legal
which OLAF was set up and, in particular, the duty of care and
the prohibition of arbitrary action.

The defendant thereby caused the alleged material and non-
material damage, since, as the defendant has accepted in the
interim in the context of
the procedure under Articles 73
and 78 of the Staff Regulations, the applicant became ill as a
result of those administrative errors and was ultimately inva-
lided. The unlawful and delayed execution of the abovemen-
tioned procedure caused him additional non-material damage.