14.10.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 249/18


Action brought on 25 August 2006 — Lopez Teruel v OHIM

(Case F-99/06)

(2006/C 249/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Adelaida Lopez Teruel (El Casar, Spain) (represented by: G. Vandersanden, L. Levi and C. Ronzi, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

Form of order sought

The Court is asked to:

annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 20 October 2005 taken in response to the opinion of the independent doctor referred to in Article 59(1) of the Staff Regulations;

so far as necessary, annul the Appointing Authority's decision of 17 May 2006 rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant on 20 January 2006;

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an OHIM official, submitted medical certificates justifying her absence from work from 7 April to 7 August 2005. The validity of those certificates was disputed by OHIM, which required the applicant to undergo medical examinations. On the basis of those examinations, OHIM ordered the applicant to return to her post from 2 August 2005. The procedure for an independent medical opinion, set in motion at the applicant's request in accordance with Article 59(1) of the Staff Regulations, confirmed the fact that the applicant's absence was irregular.

In support of her application, the applicant puts forward three pleas, the first of which alleges infringement of the fifth and the sixth paragraphs of the abovementioned provision. So far as the fifth paragraph is concerned, the applicant criticises the calculation of the days of absence which OHIM treated as being irregular following the medical examinations. So far as the sixth paragraph is concerned, the applicant submits, first, that AIPN acted improperly in its selection of the independent doctor, although there was no disagreement between the institution's medical officer and the applicant's doctor as regards the selection of the third doctor. Second, the period of five days referred to in the paragraph in question ran only from the time when the institution's medical officer contacted the official's doctor. In the alternative, she submits that this time-limit is not mandatory.

In her second plea, the applicant alleges that the statement of reasons in the independent doctor's opinion was erroneous and that it was not properly drawn up, in so far as the conclusions of that opinion are not consistent with the medical findings contained therein.

In her third plea, the applicant alleges infringement of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials, the principle of good administration, the principle of openness and the rights of the defence.