CELEX: C1995/333/32
Language: en
Date: 1995-12-09 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 4 October 1995 by 'P' against Commission of the European Commmunities (Case T-181/95)

9 . 12 . 95           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 333/ 17
Action brought on 4 October 1995 by 'P' against                      an abusive breach of the legitimate expectation which it
         Commission of the European Commmunities                     consistently induced her to nurture .
                       ( Case T-181 /95 )
                         ( 95/C 333/32 )
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     Action brought on 4 October 1995 by Giuseppe Carraro
                                                                       against the Commission of the European Communities
An action against the Commission of the European                                            Case T-l 83/95
Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                                            ( 95/C 333/33 )
Instance of the European Communities on 4 October 1995
by ' P', represented by Marie Vicelli and Jean-Pierre Spitzer,
of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg                         (Language of the case: Italian)
at the office of Aloyse May, 30 Grand-Rue .
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
The applicant claims that the Court should:                          Instance of the European Communities on 4 October 1994
                                                                     by Giuseppe Carraro, an official employed at the Joint
— annul the decision taken on 10 February 1995 by the                Research Centre at Ispra and resident at Varese, represented
     office responsible for settling claims,                         by Giuseppe Marchesini, avvocato at the Court of Cassation
                                                                     of the Italian Republic, with an address for service in
— annul the decision taken on 5 January 1995 by the office           Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8-10 Rue
     responsible for settling claims, as clarified and               Mathias Hardt .
     supplemented by the letter of 30 June 1995 ,
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should :
— declare that the applicant is entitled to 100%
     reimbursement of her medical expenses, including the            — annul the measure implicitly refusing him assistance in
     residential expenses of her stay in a psychiatric hospital          contravention of the first subparagraph of Article 24 of
     and checks made subsequent to hospitalization up to                 the Staff Regulations, which gives rise to all the grounds
     31 December 1999 ,                                                  in this case .
— order the Commission to pay retroactively all of the               — order the Commission to pay compensation for the
     amounts which the applicant has been required to                    non-material damage suffered by the applicant as a
                                                                         result of the circulation of the defamatory letter the
     pay ,
                                                                         contents of which have never as yet been officially denied
                                                                         by the administration, which he assesses at ECU 10 000,
— order the Commission to pay all of the costs .                         and also to pay the legal costs to be incurred by the
                                                                         applicant in claiming damages in criminal proceedings
Pleas in law and main arguments:                                         before the national court, assessed at ECU 3 000,
                                                                     — order the Commission to pay the costs and expenses of
The applicant, who is the widow of a Community official                  these proceedings.
and has been in hospital since 1984 by reason of a serious
mental illness, contests two decisions reducing the duration
and scope of the reimbursements hitherto made in                     Pleas in law and main arguments:
connection with her stay in a psychiatric hospital .
                                                                     The applicant is an official of the Commission employed in
                                                                     the Infrastructure Division of the Joint Research Centre at
The applicant first takes the view that the administrative           Ispra where he performs the duties of a design engineer in
procedure which resulted in the adoption of the contested            renovation, maintenance and alteration works for the
decisions suffers from serious irregularities . She claims that      buildings at the Centre and also the task of supervising
the defendant did not take care to obtain in advance the
                                                                     contracted works . In carrying out those duties, the applicant
opinion of the institution's medical officer regarding the           had responsibility for inspecting the work done and
state of the applicant's health and that it manifestly failed to     checking whether the costs relating to the renovation
enable her to express her views in an effective manner . By          contract for the west wing of building 20/A, entered into by
acting in this way, the defendant infringed essential                the Commission and a local outside undertaking, were
procedural requirements and failed to respect the                    appropriate .
applicant's rights of defence .
                                                                     When the works were finished, after checking that they had
The applicant also pleads a breach of the applicable rules,          been carried out in a workmanlike manner and examining
arguing that the fact of basing the contested decisions on           the quantities indicated by the contractor and the payments
Point XV ( 3 ) of Annex I to the Rules on Sickness Insurance         made while the work was in progress, the applicant
for Officials of the European Communities implies a                  informed the administration that because of work which
mistaken interpretation of that provision. She also submits          had either not been carried out at all or of which less had
that the administration's conduct towards her amounts to             been done than stipulated, the works must be considered to