Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

—

C/2025/3415

30.6.2025

(Case T-204/25)

(C/2025/3415)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: IQ (represented by: J. Michielsen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Defence Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul the notification of the Authority Authorised to Conclude Contracts (AACC) of the European Defence Agency of 16 July 2024, with reference ‘EDAHR202407018’, regarding the applicant’s request to initiate invalidity procedure;

—annul the Decision of the Authority Authorised to Conclude Contracts (AACC) of the European Defence Agency of 9 January 2025, with reference ‘EDAHR202411003’, in response to the complaint lodged under Article 168(2) of the European Defence Agency Staff Regulations;

—impose the initiation of the invalidity procedure before the Invalidity Committee in accordance with Article 78 of the EDA Staff Regulations in view of the recognition of the right to invalidity allowance and medical expenses coverages.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law.

Single plea in law, alleging the unjustified refusal to honour the applicant’s request to initiate the invalidity procedure before the Invalidity Committee, because of a presumed but completely unproven abuse of rights.

The applicant’s request to initiate the invalidity procedure before the Invalidity Committee – in order to determine whether or not he suffers from invalidity and is entitled to invalidity allowance within the meaning of Article 77 of the EDA Staff Regulations – was denied due to an alleged abuse of rights.

The contested decision states that the applicant’s request was submitted well after 12 months of absence due to the sick leave [as referred to in Article 53(4) of the EDA Staff Regulations], whereas the end of the applicant’s employment contract was approaching. Therefore, the request was subject to specific analysis to determine if it was of abusive nature. Having considered the timing of the applicant’s request, the alleged absence of any information suggesting impossibility of his return to work before the end of his contract, the alleged absence of any new information supporting the request, the request to refer to the Invalidity Committee was not upheld. The request was considered as being of abusive nature.

The suggestion according to which the timing of the applicant’s request shows an abuse of the right to seek application of Article 77 of the EDA Staff Regulations is absurd. The applicant has always been transparent about his health condition and has always sent the necessary attestations to the EDA in a timely manner.

However, the applicant’s medical situation is difficult to assess. The fact that he did not address his request immediately after the expiry of the term mentioned in Article 53(4) of the EDA Staff Regulations just shows that he did not go lightly on that request and as such behaved in good faith as a staff member. For a long time, he maintained the hope for a recovery in a shorter period of time.

The fact that the applicant’s request came somewhat close to the anticipated end date of the collaboration cannot automatically lead to the conclusions that there was abuse. This is purely due to the fact that the applicant fell ill less than two years before the end of the contract for a duration that eventually exceeded twelve months.

To judge otherwise, would result in the loss of the right to the application of Article 77 of the EDA Staff Regulations for any staff member who falls ill late during the collaboration, simply because of the fact that the end date of the collaboration then is approaching.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3415/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—