CELEX: C2003/044/78
Language: en
Date: 2003-02-22 00:00:00
Title: Case T-390/02: Action brought on 24 December 2002 by Antonio Cagnato against the Court of Justice of the European Communities

C 44/42                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        22.2.2003
Action brought on 24 December 2002 by Antonio Cagna-                      Action brought on 24 December 2002 by the Bundesver-
to against the Court of Justice of the European Communi-                  band der Nahrungsmittel- und Speiseresteverwertung e.V.
                               ties                                       and Josef Kloh against the European Parliament and the
                                                                                          Council of the European Union
                        (Case T-390/02)
                                                                                                  (Case T-391/02)
                         (2003/C 44/78)
                                                                                                   (2003/C 44/79)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                            (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Court of Justice of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 24 December 2002 by                        An action against the European Parliament and the Council of
Antonio Cagnato, residing in Dippach-Gare (Luxembourg),
                                                                          the European Union was brought before the Court of First
represented by Juan Ramon Iturriagagoitia and Karine Delvol-              Insurance of the European Communities on 24 December
vé, lawyers.                                                              2002 by the Bundesverband der Nahrungsmittel- und Speisere-
                                                                          steverwertung e.V., Bochum (Germany), and Josef Kloh, Eich-
                                                                          enried (Germany), represented by R. Steiling and S. von
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Zimmermann-Wienhues.
—     annul the decision of the Court of Justice given on
      24 September 2002 and concerning the complaint lodged               The applicants claim that the Court should:
      by the applicant on 25 January 2002 against the decision
      of 25 October 2001;
                                                                          —     annul Article 32(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of
                                                                                the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 October
—     order the defendant to pay the applicant compensation
                                                                                2002 laying down health rules concerning animal by-
      for the damage and non-material damage of every kind
                                                                                products not intended for human consumption ( 1) in so
      that he has suffered as a result of his being exposed to
                                                                                far as transitional measures under Article 32(1) of the
      asbestos when carrying out his duties at the Palais de
                                                                                regulation are permitted for no more than four years
      Justice of the Court of First Instance and the Court of
                                                                                from 1 November 2002;
      Justice of the European Communities, estimated at a sum
      of EUR 350 000, subject to all necessary reservations;
                                                                          —     order the defendants to pay the costs.
—     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant, an official of the Court of Justice, challenges            The action challenges the time-limit on transitional measures
that institution’s refusal to compensate him for the damage               which may be adopted under Article 32 of the contested
suffered as a result of his occupational disease, which has               regulation in the case of Member States with a secure system
already been recognised by decision of the appointing auth-               for processing food and kitchen waste [catering waste].
ority of 31 May 2001, adopted under Article 73 of the Staff
Regulations, and on the basis of which a sum was paid to him.
                                                                          1.    The imposition of a time-limit exceeds the bounds of the
                                                                                Parliament’s and the Council’s discretion; it runs counter
The pleas relied on in support of this application are similar to               to the principle of subsidiarity (Article 5(2) EC) and the
those in Case T 255/02 H v Court of Justice (OJ C 274 of                        principle of proportionality (Article 5(3) EC).
9.11.2002, p. 26).
                                                                                In matters of Community health and hygiene law the
                                                                                institutions do not enjoy wide political discretion:
                                                                                decisions must be based on scientific evidence. There is