Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2000:266
Date: 2000-11-15
Language of the case: French
Court formation: First Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Rules on cover
Procedure: Staff cases - successful

SUMMARY - CASE T-20/00 OP 
Summary 
Officials - Social security - Insurance against accidents and occupational diseases 
- Medical appraisal - Collegial nature of the medical committee - Consideration 
of a case and preparation of final report in the absence of the doctor appointed by 
the official or institution - Validity - Conditions - Obligation to give the absent 
doctor the opportunity to present any observations and to take account thereof 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 73; Rules on the Insurance of Officials against the Risk of 
Accident and of Occupational Disease, Art. 23) 
A tripartite medical committee may legitimately meet with a majority of its members 
if it proves difficult or even impossible to hold a meeting which the third doctor 
agrees to attend. In that case, the official or, where appropriate, the institution 
which appointed the third doctor may not rely on that circumstance in itself to call 
into question the regularity of the procedure before the medical committee. Without 
the possibility of a meeting with only some, but a majority, of the members, such 
a situation could not be resolved. 
However, the two members of a tripartite medical committee meeting alone and 
preparing a majority report must not, at the very least in circumstances where 
questions of a medical nature have not been examined appropriately at an earlier 
meeting, issue a final report without having given the third doctor the opportunity 
to present any written observations he may have on a provisional version of their 
report, and without their having taken account of his views, should he choose to 
express them, in order to assess whether their initial assessment should be 
confirmed. If the third member of a tripartite medical committee still does not agree 
I-A - 76 
COMMISSION v CAMACHO FERNANDES 
to take part in its work, this time in writing, the other two members must be able 
to prepare a majority report in his absence and thus give a majority ruling. 
(see paras 47-48) 
See: 12/68 X v Audit Board [1969] ECR 109. paras 10 lo 18; T-54/89 V v Parliament 
[1990] ECR II-659. para. 34; T-62/96 De Corte v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I-A-31 
and II-71. para. 81. and the case-law cited: T-121/99 Irving v Commission [2000] 
ECR-SC I-A-85 and II-357. para. 70 
I-A - 77