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 C2006/022/40

    Case T-422/05: Action brought on 21 November 2005 — Combescot v Commission

    IO C 22, 28.1.2006, p. 22–23 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    28.1.2006   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 22/22

    Action brought on 21 November 2005 — Combescot v Commission

    (Case T-422/05)

    (2006/C 22/40)

    Language of the case: Italian

    Parties

    Applicant(s): Philippe Combescot (Lecce, Italy) (represented by: A. Maritati and V. Messa, lawyers)

    Defendant(s): European Commission

    Form of order sought

    The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

    —

    annul the Commission's decision of 29 July 2004 to reassign him to Brussels headquarters, such decision being in substitution for a previous, similar decision of 13 June 2003;

    —

    acknowledge that the applicant has suffered non-material damage, to his health and to his image as a result of the decision, with serious repercussions on his psychological balance;

    —

    award the applicant damages of EUR 150 000.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    The action is brought against the Commission's decision of 29 July 2004 to reassign the applicant to headquarters.

    In support of his claims, the applicant argues that the decision:

    —

    is unlawful, unjustified and arbitrary for failing to take account of the fact that, at the time of the assignment, the medical committee had recognised that the applicant was unfit for service until 31 December 2004;

    —

    does not allow the official to continue the therapy prescribed by his doctor;

    —

    cannot be justified by the interests of the service, since an official on sick leave cannot fulfill the work requirements of the service.

    The applicant adds that the contested decision has caused him to lose the rights of an official in a non-member country, since his illness arose at a time when he was performing the functions of resident adviser in Guatemala.

    Top