Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2025/3062

10.6.2025

(Case T-191/25)

(C/2025/3062)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: AW (represented by: J. Martins, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should

—declare his action admissible and well founded;

—annul the contested decisions;

—order the defendant to pay the full costs and expenses of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Under the decision of 25 April 2024 of the Pensions and Social Insurance Unit (Directorate-General for Personnel, Directorate for Human Resources Administration) of the European Parliament, drafted in French and sent only by email of 25 April 2024, the following was decided:

‘Article 1: The aggravation of the illness suffered by Mr AW does not originate in or during the performance of his duties in the service of the European Union;

Article 2: The medical expenses relating to that illness shall not give rise to additional reimbursement under the insurance for accidents and occupational diseases of civil servants of the European Union;

Article 3: Under the second paragraph of Article 22(4) of the Common Rules [on the insurance of officials of the European Communities against the risk of accident and of occupational disease], the insured parties are to pay the fees and incidental expenses of the doctor chosen by them and half of the fees and incidental expenses of the third doctor.’

By the present action, the applicant thus seeks annulment of the decision of 25 April 2024 and the decision of 9 December 2024 by which the European Parliament rejected the claim submitted on 25 July 2024.

In support of the applications for annulment of those two decisions, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of good administration and the duty to state reasons, and the applicant claims that the doctor appointed by him detected errors on a number of occasions in the proceedings of the Medical Committee.

2.Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment. First, the applicant submits that the European Parliament committed a manifest error of assessment in its understanding of the proceedings of the Medical Committee, in so far as the latter did not respect diversity. Second, the applicant submits that the European Parliament allowed the Medical Committee to breach its most elementary ethical, professional and expertise standards by not making full use of all the medical reports under discussion.

—

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3062/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—