Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2011:257
Date: 2011-06-08
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Appeals Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Appeal - unfounded;Staff cases;Action for damages;Appeal - successful

Summary 1. Officials — Invalidity — Invalidity Committee — Judicial review — Scope — Limits (Staff Regulations, Art. 78) 2. Appeals — Pleas in law — Inadequate statement of reasons — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Review of the scope of the obligation to state the reasons for the contested decision (Art. 253 EC; Staff Regulations, Art. 25, second para.) 3. Officials — Decision adversely affecting an official — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Decision adopted in circumstances known to the addressee (Art. 253 EC; Staff Regulations, Art. 25, second para.) 4. Officials — Actions — Action for damages — Annulment of the illegal act in dispute — Whether appropriate reparation for non-material damage (Staff Regulations, Art. 91) 5. Appeals — Pleas in law — Incorrect assessment of the facts and the evidence — Inadmissibility — Court’s review of the assessment of the facts and the evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 11) 1. Where Article 78 of the Staff Regulations is applied, the Union Courts have jurisdiction to examine the regularity of the opinion issued by the Invalidity Committee, namely whether that opinion states reasons enabling the reader to assess the considerations on which its conclusions are based and whether it has established a comprehensible link between the medical findings which it contains and the conclusions reached by the Committee. Judicial review of the proper constitution and functioning of those committees and of the regularity of the opinions which they issue is a corollary of the absence of judicial review of medical appraisals properly so-called, which must be considered definitive provided that the conditions in which they are made are not irregular. Although the purpose of the provisions concerning medical and invalidity committees is to entrust medical experts with the definitive assessment of all questions of a medical nature, the rights of the officials concerned must, however, be protected through the exercise of judicial review. (see paras 45, 54) See: C‑185/90 P Commission v Gill [1991] ECR I‑4779, para. 4; T‑43/89 Plug v Commission [1992] ECR II‑367, para. 75; T‑43/89 RV Gill v Commission [1993] ECR II‑303, para. 36; T‑376/94 Otten v Commission [1996] ECR-SC I‑A‑129 and II‑401, para. 47; T‑84/98 C v Council [2000] ECR-SC I‑A‑113 and II‑497, para. 43 and the case-law cited therein; T‑376/02 O v Commission [2004] ECR-SC I‑A‑349 and II‑1595, para. 29 2. The question of the extent of the obligation to state reasons is a question of law reviewable by the General Court on appeal. A review of the legality of a decision carried out in that context by the General Court must necessarily take into consideration the facts on which the Civil Service Tribunal based its conclusion as to the adequacy or inadequacy of the statement of reasons. (see para. 62) See: C‑188/96 P Commission v V [1997] ECR I‑6561, para. 24 3. The reasons given for a measure adversely affecting a person are sufficient if it was adopted in circumstances known to that person which enable him to understand the scope of the measure concerning him. (see para. 68) See: T‑390/08 Bank Melli Iran v Council [2009] ECR II‑3967, para. 82 and the case-law cited therein 4. The annulment of an unlawful act may in itself constitute appropriate and, in principle, sufficient reparation for any non-material damage that act may have caused, unless the applicant demonstrates that he has suffered non-material damage separable from the illegality of the act justifying its annulment and not capable of being entirely remedied by that annulment. In that respect, a declaration of total permanent invalidity preventing an official from performing the duties corresponding to a post in his career bracket, pursuant to Article 78 of the Staff Regulations, is based on purely medical considerations expressed by medical experts in the course of the invalidity procedure. That declaration gives an objective, unbiased description of the official’s state of health, which is universally regarded as entirely beyond his control. Such a description does not, therefore, in itself, save in exceptional circumstances, contain any negative assessment of the person concerned. Such a declaration in a contested decision does not, therefore, involve a negative assessment of an official’s abilities, so that the annulment of the decision in itself constitutes appropriate and sufficient reparation for any non-material damage caused by that decision. (see paras 73, 75, 76) See: T‑29/01 Puente Martín v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I‑A‑157 and II‑833, para. 65; T‑10/02 Girardot v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I‑A‑2-129 and II‑A‑2-609, para. 131 and the case-law cited therein 5. The first instance court has exclusive jurisdiction to find the facts, save where a substantive inaccuracy in its findings is apparent from the documents submitted to it, and to appraise those facts. Thus, the appraisal of the facts by the first instance court does not, except in the case of distortion of the evidence submitted to that court, constitute a question of law which, as such, is subject to review by the Court. Such distortion must be obvious from the documents on the Court’s file, without there being any need to carry out a new assessment of the facts and the evidence. (see paras 81-82) See: C‑8/95 P New Holland Ford v Commission [1998] ECR I‑3175, para. 72; C‑551/03 P General Motors v Commission [2006] ECR I‑3173, para. 54; C‑167/04 P JCBService v Commission [2006] ECR I‑8935, para. 108; T‑222/07 P Kerstens v Commission [2008] ECR I‑B‑1-37 and II‑B‑1-267, paras 60 and 61 and the case-law cited therein, and para. 62