Case T-192/25: Action brought on 19 March 2025 – AW v Parliament
Date: 2025-03-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, health expenditure, medical report, personal accident insurance, staff regulations (EU), therapeutics, trauma








C_202503063EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/3063


10.6.2025






Action brought on 19 March 2025 – AW v Parliament


(Case T-192/25)

(C/2025/3063)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Applicant: AW (represented by: J. Martins, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should






—


declare his action admissible and well founded;










—


annul the contested decisions;










—


order the defendant to pay the full costs and expenses of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

Under the decision of 21 March 2024 of the Pensions and Social Insurance Unit (Directorate-General for Personnel, Directorate for Human Resources Administration) of the European Parliament, drafted in French and sent only by email of 25 March 2024, and which was confirmed by the head of that unit by email of 22 April 2024, it was decided to confirm the acceptance in part of the request to reopen, on grounds of aggravation, the applicant’s accident file. That decision provides the following:


               ‘Article 1: The application to reopen the file with a view to conducting a surgical review of the abdominal wall is accepted between 13/01/2020 and 13/03/2020. Consequently, the medical expenses incurred between 13/01/2020 and 13/03/2020 (stabilisation date) shall be taken into account by the accident insurance.
Article 2: The surgical treatment of a left inguinal hernia is not accepted.
Article 3: The psychiatric medical expenses do not give rise to additional reimbursement under the accident insurance.
Article 4: Under the second paragraph of Article 22(4) of the Common Rules [on the insurance of officials of the European Communities against the risk of accident and of occupational disease], the insured parties are to pay the fees and incidental expenses of the doctor chosen by them and half of the fees and incidental expenses of the third doctor (in the present case, the sum of EUR 1 425 which is to be deducted from the insured party’s invalidity allowance).’
            

By the present action, the applicant thus seeks annulment of the decision of 21 March 2024 and the decision of 9 December 2024 by which the European Parliament rejected the claim submitted on 22 July 2024.
In support of the applications for annulment of those two decisions, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of good administration and the duty to state reasons, and the applicant claims that the doctor appointed by him detected errors on a number of occasions in the proceedings of the Medical Committee.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment. First, the applicant submits that the European Parliament committed a manifest error of assessment in its understanding of the proceedings of the Medical Committee, in so far as the latter did not respect diversity. Second, the applicant submits that the European Parliament allowed the Medical Committee to breach its most elementary ethical, professional and expertise standards by not making full use of all the medical reports under discussion.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3063/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)