CELEX: C2006/131/96
Language: en
Date: 2006-06-03 00:00:00
Title: Case F-37/06: Action brought on  10 April 2006  — Strack v Commission

3.6.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 131/53
            
         Action brought on 10 April 2006 — Strack v Commission
   (Case F-37/06)
   (2006/C 131/96)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Guido Strack (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: G. Bouneaou and F. Frabetti, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the defendant's implied decision of 7 July 2005 rejecting the applicant's request that his illness should be acknowledged to be an occupational illness;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the applicant EUR 2 000 by way of damages and interest to compensate for the material loss suffered in consequence of the decision of 7 July 2005 to reject the request;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the applicant EUR 5 000 by way of damages and interest to compensate for the non-material loss suffered in consequence of the decision of 7 July 2005 to reject the request;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of the claim for annulment, the applicant puts forward three pleas alleging, by the first plea, infringement of Article 90 of the Staff Regulations, by the second plea, infringement of the principle of the prohibition on arbitrary procedure, of the obligation to give reasons and abuse of powers and, by the third plea, infringement of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.
   In support of the claim for damages, the applicant submits that the implied decision rejecting his request left him in a state of uncertainty and anxiety which persisted for a number of months, giving rise to consequent material and non-material loss.