Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 27 December 2002 by Arnaldo Lucaccioni against Commission of the European Communities

    (Case T-394/02)

    (Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 27 December 2002 by Arnaldo Lucaccioni, residing in St-Leonards-on-Sea (United Kingdom), represented by Juan Ramón Iturriagagoitia and Karine Delvolvé, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(annul the decision of the Commission of the European Communities adopted on 7 September 2002 concerning complaint R/272/02 lodged by the applicant on 21 May 2002;

(order payment in their entirety of: the fees charged by Dr Cognigni for his work in the context of the Medical and Invalidity Committees concerning the applicant, together with reimbursement of the amounts withheld from the applicant's pension; default interest on all those amounts; and the costs of the proceedings, including lawyers', translation and process servers' fees;

(compensate the applicant for the non-material damage suffered;

(order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a former official of the Commission who worked in the Berlaymont building, was retired on the ground of invalidity in 1991. The applicant's condition was subsequently acknowledged to be an occupational disease. The applicant appointed Dr Cognigni to sit on the Medical and Invalidity Committees.

The Commission failed to pay Dr Cognigni's fees. The applicant then brought Case T-75/98 seeking payment of the fees. That case was removed from the register after an out-of-court settlement fixing an amount to be paid to the applicant by way of additional payment in respect of the work done by the Invalidity Committee and of the costs incurred in bringing proceedings before national courts. Contrary to expectation, Dr Cognigni insisted that the whole of his fees be reimbursed. He therefore again brought proceedings against the applicant before the Italian courts. Following a judgment delivered by an Italian court, Dr Cognigni sought enforcement of the judgment by way of attachment of the applicant's pension. The applicant is challenging the decision adopted by the Commission authorising the attachment.

The applicant would point out that in accordance with the rules relating to fees incurred in the context of medical and invalidity committees, the costs are entirely covered by the Commission.

In support of his claims, the applicant alleges breach of the principle of proportionality and the spurious and vexatious nature of the attachment ordered by the Commission. According to the applicant, the Commission ought to have taken account of the fact that the judgment was still open to appeal. The applicant also alleges failure to have regard for the welfare of officials and misuse of powers. The Commission has created a situation allowing it to avoid all contact with Dr Cognigni who, for his part, can only pursue the applicant.

____________