I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
(Officials – Action for damages – Exposure to asbestos – Occupational disease – Damage)
Full text in French II - 0000
Application: for damages for the physical harm and the non-material, professional and financial loss allegedly suffered by the applicant.
Held: The action is dismissed. The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)
3. Officials – Non-contractual liability of the institutions – Lump-sum compensation under the staff insurance scheme – Request for additional compensation under general law – Whether permissible – Conditions
(Staff Regulations, Art. 73)
(Staff Regulations, Art. 73)
(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1))
(see para. 47)
See: T-90/95 Gill v Commission [1997] ECR-SC I-A-471 and II-1231, para. 45; T-77/99 Ojha v Commission [2001] ECR-SC I-A-61 and II-293, para. 68; T‑209/99 Hoyer v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I-A-243 and II-1211, para. 32
(see paras 49-50)
See: C-136/92 P Commission v Brazzelli Lualdi and Others [1994] ECR I-1981, para. 42; C-257/98 P Lucaccioni v Commission [1999] ECR I-5251, para. 14; T‑205/96 Bieber v Parliament [1998] ECR-SC I-A-231 and II-723, para. 48; T‑165/95 Lucaccioni v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I-A-203 and II-627, para. 57
3. Officials are entitled to seek compensation in addition to the benefits received under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations where the institution is responsible for the accident or occupational disease according to ordinary law and the benefits payable under the staff insurance scheme are insufficient to provide full compensation for the injury suffered. Such lump-sum compensation cannot, however, lead to double compensation for the harm suffered. In this sense, the two compensation schemes are not independent.
(see para. 53)
See: 169/83 and 136/84 Leussink and Others v Commission [1986] ECR 2801, paras 10 to 14; C-257/98 P Lucaccioni v Commission, cited above, paras 19 to 22
(see para. 84)
(see para. 112)
See: T-102/92 Viho v Commission [1995] ECR II-17, para. 68; T-352/94 Mo och Domsjö v Commission [1998] ECR II-1989, para. 333
(see para. 115)
See: C-121/01 P O’Hannrachain v Parliament [2003] ECR I-5553, para. 46; T‑104/96 Krämer v Commission [1997] ECR-SC I-A-151 and II-463, para. 67