—

annul the decision of the Commission’s appointing authority of 7 September 2022, rejecting the complaint R/553/22 submitted by the applicant;

—

propose that the parties consider reaching an amicable settlement to the dispute;

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

1.

The first plea, alleging that the appointing authority unlawfully convened the Medical Committee on 14 February 2020 without designating a third doctor.

2.

The second plea, alleging that the appointing authority acted unlawfully by accepting the systematic failure, by the second and third doctor, to apply the Medical Committee’s mandate, in particular the first three points of the mandate, as well as the specific response to paragraphs 103, 105, 107, 108, 110 and 111 of the General Court’s judgment of 25 October 2017 in case T-551/16 Lucaccioni v Commission.

3.

The third plea, alleging that the appointing authority acted unlawfully by accepting the failure to apply the Medical Committees’ Charter in the minutes of the second and third meetings on the Medical Committee.

4.

The fourth plea, alleging that the appointing authority acted unlawfully in excluding, of its own motion and without valid reason, the applicant from two meetings of the Medical Committee, when his presence was provided for in the mandate.

5.

The fifth plea, alleging that the appointing authority acted unlawfully by accepting that three primary medical reports were not recorded as challenged in the Medical Committee’s final report, notwithstanding that the mandate required it.

6.

The sixth plea, alleging that the appointing authority acted unlawfully by accepting that in the final report, the second and third doctor, without any specialism in psychiatry and without any external input, had contested the psychiatric medical report of a renowned clinician chosen personally by the third doctor, following a rigorous personal medical examination.

7.

The seventh plea, alleging that the second and third doctors very seriously equated the psychological damage, compensated on legitimate grounds until 1994, to the psychiatric damage on grounds post-dating 1994, already criticised by the General Court in its judgment of 25 October 2017, in case T-551/16 Lucaccioni v Commission.

8.

The eighth plea, alleging that the one vote cast by the second and third doctors during the meeting of the Medical Board on 14 February 2020 did not come within the exercise of medical science.

9.

The ninth plea, alleging that the figure of 70 % is justified in respect of respiratory impairment, which the applicant never declared and was never granted before 1994 and which was assessed as accurate by the same third doctor, from which it clearly follows that that impairment arose after that date and not after the year 2000, when the applicant made the declaration.

10.

The tenth plea, alleging that the figure of 50 % is justified in respect of major depression, never declared by the applicant and never granted before 1994, and which was recognised by a renowned clinician, but explicitly disputed by the third doctor since it occurred after 1994 and before the year 2000, the date of the declaration of the first deterioration for the purposes of Article 14 of the Rules on the insurance of officials of the European Communities against the risk of accident and occupational disease, in the version preceding 1 January 2006.

11.

The eleventh plea, challenging the figure of 10 % for the disorder ‘functional sleep disturbance due to the alteration of the left-side lateral decubitus position’, certified by the hospital medical report and considered as the minimum percentage for ‘sleep disturbances’ provided for by the B.O.B.I. (Barème officiel belge des invalidités; the official Belgian invalidity scale).

12.

The twelfth plea, alleging a second deterioration declared on 18 March 2021.