15.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 238/27

(Case T-316/19)

(2019/C 238/32)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul the decision issued by the Commission on 2 August 2018;

—order the Commission to pay EUR 21 440;

—order the Commission to pay default interest from 23 January 2017 until payment is made;

—order the Commission to pay damages in the amount of EUR 500 000 or another equitably determined amount;

—order the Commission to pay the costs.

In the alternative:

—order the Commission to recognise that the present case falls within the scope of the specific case described in Article 10 of the rules (in force before 2006), and reimburse the sum claimed principally;

Further in the alternative:

—order the Commission to request the opinion of the medical committee in accordance with Articles 20 and 22 of the common rules (post 2006).

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present case, for whom total and permanent invalidity on account of an occupational disease has already been recognised, disputes the refusal of the appointing authority to apply Article 10 of the Rules on insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease in force before 1 January 2006 as regards reimbursement for treatments relating to the closure of an ‘open bite’ which is detrimental to the breathing apparatus used by the applicant who is impaired by an occupational disease.

In support of the action, the applicant raises three pleas in law:

1.First plea in law, alleging that the report of the doctor treating the applicant and the result obtained leave no doubt as to the urgency and necessity of the treatment within the meaning of Article 10 of the rules;

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of good administration on account of the incomplete documentation provided to the expert relied upon by the designated doctor, in accordance with Article 23, and on account of the abnormally unethical conduct of the three doctors who took part at that stage, including refusal to acknowledge basic nasal functions, in particular the protection against infection of the applicant’s impaired breathing apparatus, and consequently refusal to acknowledge the relief provided by the closure of the open bite.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the appointing authority refused to apply by analogy Article 22 of the common rules on insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease to the applicant in place of Article 23, which was deemed inapplicable, even though it requested the President of the Court of Justice to apply Article 22 in order to appoint the ‘other doctor’ of its own motion: recourse to the medical committee ensures for the applicant that the mandate is properly formulated and that the case-file is complete.