Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document C2006/131/96

    Case F-37/06: Action brought on 10 April 2006 — Strack v Commission

    OJ C 131, 3.6.2006, p. 53–53 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    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.

    Top