19.6.2010

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/42

—

(Case T-510/09 P)

(2010/C 161/67)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: V (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by E. Boigelot, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

—Declare the appeal admissible and well-founded and, in consequence,

—set aside the judgment under appeal delivered on 21 October 2009 by the First Chamber of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-33/08, notified to the appellant on 26 October 2009, dismissing as unfounded the appellant’s action for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 15 May 2007, informing her that she did not satisfy the physical fitness requirements necessary for the performance of her duties, and for an order that the Commission pay damages to the appellant for the losses she claims to have suffered;

—grant the form of order sought by the appellant before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal;

—order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and of the appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present appeal, the appellant requests the General Court to set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) of 21 October 2009, delivered in Case F-33/08 V v Commission, dismissing the action for annulment of the Commission’s decision not to engage the appellant on the ground that she does not satisfy the physical fitness requirements necessary for the performance of her duties, and a claim for damages.

In support of her appeal, the appellant puts forward three pleas in law alleging errors of law, distortion of the evidence in the documents in the case and erroneous and inadequate grounds of the judgment.

First, the appellant challenges the judgment under appeal in so far as the Tribunal found that it had not been established that the irregularity concerning Dr K’s intervention had influenced the procedural steps that culminated in the adoption of the decision at issue.

Second, the appellant takes the view that the CST misconstrued the duty to respect the confidentiality of medical information and the patient’s right as an individual to respect for such confidentiality, in so far as it considered itself to be prevented by the appellant’s reliance on that principle from reviewing the legality of the medical committee’s opinion as to her non-fitness for work.

Third, the appellant is of the view that the CST vitiated its reasoning by a failure to state reasons with regard to its appraisal of the arguments concerning the non-registration of the chairman of the medical committee on the list of the Belgian Ordre des médecins (Belgian Medical Council).

—