This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2005/155/48
Case T-147/05: Action brought on 4 April 2005 by Federico José Garcia Resusta against the Commission of the European Communities
Case T-147/05: Action brought on 4 April 2005 by Federico José Garcia Resusta against the Commission of the European Communities
Case T-147/05: Action brought on 4 April 2005 by Federico José Garcia Resusta against the Commission of the European Communities
JO C 155, 25.6.2005, p. 25–25
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
25.6.2005 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 155/25 |
Action brought on 4 April 2005 by Federico José Garcia Resusta against the Commission of the European Communities
(Case T-147/05)
(2005/C 155/48)
Language of the case: French
An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 4 April 2005 by Federico José Garcia Resusta, residing in Brussels, represented by Jean Van Rossum, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
annul the Commission's decision to dismiss the applicant's request for recognition of the occupational origin of his disease or aggravation thereof, which prevents him from performing the tasks associated with a post in his category and grade, |
|
— |
order the defendant to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The Commission adopted the contested decision following the judgment of 23 November 2004 of the Court of First Instance in Case T-376/02 (1), which annulled the Commission's decision of 14 January 2002 awarding the applicant an invalidity pension.
In support of his action, the applicant alleges infringement of the obligation to state reasons and infringement of Article 3 of the Rules on the insurance of officials of the European Communities against the risk of accident and of occupational disease, on the grounds that the opinion of the Medical Committee, which decided that it had not been established sufficiently that the aggravation of the applicant's disease had a direct connection with the duties he had performed, was contrary to the opinion of the Invalidity Committee, which had found the applicant's pre-existing disease had been aggravated by the stress related to his duties.
(1) Application published in OJ 2003 C 44 of 22.2.2003, p. 37, judgment published in OJ 2004 C 45 of 19.2.2005, p. 23.