Action brought on 13 May 2004 by Luigi Marcuccio against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-176/04)

(2004/C 179/34)

Language of the case: Italian

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 13 May 2004 by Luigi Marcuccio, represented by Alessandro Distante, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action was brought by the applicant as a result of the fact that, on 1 April 2003, he submitted a request to the Commission in the following terms: (a) if a medical report drawn up by Dr M.P. Simonnet on the occasion of the medical check up which the Commission required him to undergo on 20 June 2002 exists, to have a certified copy thereof sent to him or to a doctor designated by him and, in the latter case, that he should be informed thereof in writing; (b) if the medical report does not exist, to be informed of that fact in writing; (c) if there is any reason to deny the requests at (a) and (b) above, to be informed thereof in writing.

Following the implied rejection of the request, the applicant brought the present action.

In support of his arguments, the applicant puts forward the following pleas in law:

Breach of the law inasmuch as the official is entitled to have access to all data relating to him drawn up by agents of the defendant in the course of their duties and in their possession, and thus including the medical report.

Breach of the applicant's right to health, in particular to his physical and mental health and of the institution's duty to have regard for his welfare.

Breach of the obligation to provide reasons for decisions, as provided for in Article 25 of the Staff Regulations.

Breach of the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials, inasmuch as the defendant had not the slightest regard for the interest of the applicant to have access to the medical report, or at least for such a report to be transmitted to a doctor of his choice, in particular in light of the fact that it is impossible to discern what interest of the service the defendant sought to protect, quod non, by its rejection of the request and of the complaint.