(Officials – Article 78 of the Staff Regulations – Invalidity pension – Invalidity Committee – Membership – Occupational disease)

Full text in French II - 0000

Application: for annulment of the decision of the Commission of 14 January 2002 awarding the applicant an invalidity pension set in accordance with the provisions of the third paragraph of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities.

Held: The decision of the Commission of 14 January 2002 awarding the applicant an invalidity pension is annulled. The Commission is ordered to bear all the costs.

Summary

1. Officials – Invalidity – Invalidity Committee – Judicial review – Scope – Limits

(Staff Regulations, Annex II, Art. 7)

(Staff Regulations, Art. 78)

1. The provisions relating to the Invalidity Committee are designed to confer upon medical experts the task of definitively appraising all medical questions. Judicial review may not extend to medical appraisals properly so-called, which must be considered definitive, provided that the conditions in which they are made are not irregular. On the other hand, judicial review may extend to questions concerning the proper constitution and functioning of those committees, and also the regularity of the opinions which they issue. From that point of view, the Court has jurisdiction to examine whether the opinion contains a statement of reasons enabling the reader to assess the considerations on which the conclusions which it contains were based and whether it establishes a comprehensible link between its medical findings and the conclusions reached by the committee.

(see para. 29)

See: 277/84 Jänsch v Commission [1987] ECR 4923, para. 15; T‑84/98 C v Council [2000] ECR-SC I‑A‑113 and II‑497, para. 43

2. Article 7 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations ensures that the rights and interests of officials will be safeguarded by the presence on the committee of a doctor who has their trust. That provision also provides that one of the doctors making up the committee is appointed by the institution concerned. However, neither the letter nor the spirit of Article 7 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations prevents either the institution or the official from appointing a different doctor if the doctor originally appointed is not available.

(see para. 42)

See: T‑376/94 Otten v Commission [1996] ECR-SC I‑A‑129 and II‑401, para. 47

3. In the course of the work of the Invalidity Committee it is for each of its members to perform his duties in accordance with his moral obligations. It follows that the question whether, in a given situation, the official concerned should be examined or consulted falls within the discretion conferred on the members of the Invalidity Committee in medical matters.

(see para. 44)

See: T‑196/95 H v Commission [1997] ECR-SC I‑A‑133 and II‑403, para. 8

4. An ‘occupational disease’ within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations is not limited to cases in which the permanent invalidity deemed to be total of the official has its origin exclusively in the performance of his duties, but also includes cases where the invalidity is the result of the aggravation of a pre-existing illness which originated elsewhere.

In other words, if the aggravation, as a result of performance of duties in the service of the Communities, of a pre-existing illness renders an official incapable of continuing to perform his duties, that invalidity must be considered to have been caused by an occupational disease within the meaning of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations.

It follows that, in order to establish the existence of an occupational disease within the meaning of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations, a causal link between the disease or its aggravation and the performance of duties with the Communities must be sufficiently established. However, as the Staff Regulations do not require an ‘essential’ or ‘predominant’ causal relationship, it is necessary only that the pathological condition of the person concerned should show a ‘sufficiently direct relationship’ with the duties which he performed.

(see paras 67-70)

See: 76/84 Rienzi v Commission [1987] ECR 315, para. 10; T‑165/89 Plug v Commission [1992] ECR II‑367, para. 81; T‑43/89 Gill v Commission [1993] ECR II‑303, para. 28