CELEX: 61989TJ0031
Officials
Degree of invalidity

1 . Reference to the Medical Committee, provided for by Article 23 of the Rules on Insurance of Officials of the European Communities against the Risk of Accident and Occupational Disease, is not intended to set in motion an adversarial procedure but to establish medical findings by means of that committee .
The fact that an official has not had an opportunity to be heard personally by the Medical Committee or the appointing authority is therefore irrelevant . In consequence the fact that the person concerned has not received the medical report from the committee until he has been notified of the decisions by the defendant institution regarding the consequences of accidents he has suffered and fixing the rate of his permanent partial invalidity does not in itself constitute a formal defect capable of entailing the annulment of the decisions in question .
Furthermore, it is for the Medical Committee to decide to what extent account should be taken of medical reports drawn up in advance ( see the judgment of 19 January 1988 in Case 2/87 Biedermann v Court of Auditors (( 1988 )) ECR 143 ).
2 . The report of the Medical Committee is not vitiated by a formal defect because one of its members has refused to sign it ( see the judgment of 10 December 1987 in Case 277/84 Jaensch v Commission (( 1987 )) ECR 4923 ) when it is established that the member who has refrained from signing had an opportunity to put forward his point of view to the other two members .
3 . The fact that the doctor appointed by the Community institution as a member of the Medical Committee is also appointed by the institution' s insurer can in no way adversely affect the official ( see the judgments of 14 July 1981 in Case 186/80 Suss v Commission (( 1981 )) ECR 2041 and of 19 January 1988 in Case 2/87 Biedermann v Court of Auditors (( 1988 )) ECR 143 ) in so far as the Medical Committee is able to work independently and objectively . The doctor appointed by the institution must therefore have the necessary independence for his objectivity not to be open to question .
4 . The Court of First Instance has no jurisdiction to review the Medical Committee' s appraisal unless the medical report does not establish a comprehensible link between the medical findings which it contains and the conclusions which it draws ( see the judgments of 26 January 1984 in Case 189/82 Seiler v Council (( 1984 )) ECR 229 and of 10 December 1987 in Case 277/84 Jaensch v Commission (( 1987 )) ECR 4923 ).
Parties
In Case T-31/89
Maria Paola Sabbatucci, an official of the European Parliament, residing in Luxembourg, represented by Aloyse May, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at his Chambers, 31 Grand-rue,
applicant,
v
European Parliament, represented by Jorge Campinos, jurisconsult, and Manfred Peter, Head of Division, acting as Agents, assisted by Alex Bonn, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address to service in Luxembourg at his Chambers, 22 Côte d' Eich,
defendant,
APPLICATION for the annulment of the defendant' s decisions of 15 July 1987 relating to the consequences of the accidents suffered by the applicant and determining the first degree of partial permanent invalidity which she suffered,
THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ( Third Chamber )
composed of : A . Saggio, President of Chamber, B . Vesterdorf and K . Lenaerts, Judges,
( the grounds of the judgment are not reproduced )
hereby;
Operative part
( 1 ) Dismisses the application;
( 2 ) Orders the parties to bear their own costs .