CELEX: 62018TN0020
Language: en
Date: 2018-01-17 00:00:00
Title: Case T-20/18: Action brought on 17 January 2018 — CV v Commission

26.3.2018   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 112/34
            
         Action brought on 17 January 2018 — CV v Commission
   (Case T-20/18)
   (2018/C 112/44)
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: CV (represented by: F. Moyse, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the contested decisions of 15 and 20 March 2017 and of 18 October 2017;
            
         
               —
            
            
               award the applicant the amount of EUR 1 475 by way of compensation for material damage plus statutory interest at the rate of 2,25 %, to be calculated as from the payment of that amount, or, in the alternative, as from the date on which the complaint was lodged, or, in the further alternative, as from the date on which the application was lodged, and the amount of EUR 1 by way of compensation for non-material damage;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging irregularity of the administrative procedure preceding the adoption of the contested decisions, including before the Medical Committee, by which the application for recognition of the occupational origin of the applicant’s disease was rejected and certain costs and fees of the members of the Medical Committee were imposed on the applicant.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment made by a doctor in that doctor’s reports.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging that the reasons stated in the contested decisions were insufficient.