EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/84

(Case T-507/19)

(2019/C 295/110)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: DH (represented by: E. Bonanni, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul the Commission’s decision of 13 September 2018 for failing to provide for the possibility of objecting to the appointment of Dr X in connection with the possible procedure before the newly established Medical Committee and, accordingly, provide for another independent medical practitioner to be appointed for the procedures relating to Cases T-308/19 and T-316/19, providing prompt notification thereof;

—order the Commission to pay EUR 500 000 or such other amount as the Court shall deem fair;

—order the Commission to inform the Court and/or the applicant, as requested in application D/462/17, of the identity of the doctor appointed by the Medical Committee who consulted the applicant’s file in full and, while remaining anonymous, gave a negative opinion on a request for reimbursement in respect of medical care requiring prior authorisation submitted by the applicant in the context of Article 10 of the Common Rules on the insurance of officials of the European Union against the risk of accident and of occupational disease (‘the Common Rules’);

—in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant claims that, in the present case, there has been conduct that is inconsistent with professional and ethical practices in connection with the renewal of the Medical Committee.

As regards the harm the applicant claims to have suffered, the applicant claims that there has been delay to the proceedings and that the conduct of the doctor in question was inconsistent with professional and ethical practices. He also claims that there have been acts detrimental to the honour and dignity of the victim and unlawful omissions on the part of the Commission, taking into account the fact that the chain of events giving rise to the present action began with the applicant’s request of 7 June 2000 for recognition of aggravation of his occupational illness and with judgments against the Commission in two cases: T-212/01 and T-551/16.