CELEX: C2006/326/171
Language: en
Date: 2006-12-30 00:00:00
Title: Case F-127/06: Action brought on 3 November 2006 — H v Council

30.12.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 326/85
            
         Action brought on 3 November 2006 — H v Council
   (Case F-127/06)
   (2006/C 326/171)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties
   
      Applicant: H (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Forms of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               annul the Council's decision of 15 March 2006 automatically to retire the applicant on 31 March 2006 in so far as it allows her an invalidity pension pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, who was retired with effect from 30 April 2003 due to her invalidity, was reintegrated on 1 November 2004. Following a number of absences due to illness, the Council once again retired her and granted her the invalidity allowance provided for in the first paragraph of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations, with effect from 1 April 2006.
   In support of her action, the applicant claims that the Invalidity Committee did not rule on the origin of her illness or on a possible causal link between the deterioration of her illness and her working conditions. In those circumstances, the Council did not have the necessary information to determine whether the applicant was entitled to the allowance provided for by the first paragraph of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations or the one provided for in the fifth paragraph of that article. The Council's choice, less favourable to the applicant, is unlawful.
   The applicant adds that the contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment as regards the nature of her illness, which indeed deteriorated due to her return to work and the stress linked to her carrying out her professional duties.