CELEX: 62021TN0806
Language: en
Date: 2021-12-27 00:00:00
Title: Case T-806/21: Action brought on 27 December 2021 — NT v EMA

14.2.2022   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 73/66
            
         
      Action brought on 27 December 2021 — NT v EMA
      (Case T-806/21)
      (2022/C 73/83)
      Language of the case: French
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: NT (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)
      
         Defendant: European Medicines Agency
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the decision of 15 March 2021;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  to the extent necessary, annul the decision of 30 September 2021;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the defendant to pay compensation of EUR 2 500,00 for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the defendant to pay the costs.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.
      
                  1.
               
               
                  First plea in law, alleging the legal inadequacy of the statement of reasons for the decision. In that regard, the applicant refers to a lack of a specific and thorough examination of the situation and contradictions in the findings that were submitted. In addition, she argues that the concept of ‘occupational disease’ was misinterpreted and that there was a manifest error of assessment.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging that no or incorrect information was provided by the Agency’s medical officer to the doctor appointed by the applicant and to the third doctor with respect to the classification of occupational disease within the meaning of the Staff Regulations of Officials.
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Third plea in law, alleging a procedural irregularity and the premature nature of the findings of the invalidity committee in that they are meant to take account of the stressful situation caused by work while the facts underlying that situation are currently subject to an administrative enquiry.
               
            
                  4.
               
               
                  Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the applicant’s right to be heard by the authority empowered to conclude contracts before the adoption of the decision, and breach of the duty of care, of assistance and of good administration.
               
            
                  5.
               
               
                  Fifth plea in law, alleging maladministration in the treatment of the applicant’s request, involving harm to her that is assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 2 500,00.