Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2002:299
Date: 2002-12-05
Language of the case: Dutch
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Sick leave
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded

SUMMARY — CASE T-249/00 
Summary 
Officials - Sick leave - Proof of sickness - Production of a medical certificate 
enabling the administration to determine the need for a medical officer's 
examination - Production as soon as possible 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 59 and 60) 
Under Article 59 of the Staff Regulations, when an official reports that he is unable 
to perform his duties because of sickness or accident, he must notify his institution 
of his incapacity as soon as possible and produce a medical certificate justifying his 
absence if he is absent for more than three days. The administration may not deny 
the validity of such a medical certificate and claim that the absence of the official 
concerned is unauthorised unless it has first required him to undergo a medical 
examination. The duty to arrange such an examination before refusing to accept a 
medical certificate necessarily has as its corollary a duty on the part of the official 
to submit, as soon as possible, a certificate showing conclusively and in sufficient 
detail the nature of the incapacity on which he intends to rely, failing which the 
provisions of Articles 59 and 60 of the Staff Regulations would be rendered 
ineffective. 
It follows that an official who provides evidence of incapacity to perform his duties 
because of sickness is not automatically entitled to sick leave irrespective of whether 
or not he produces a medical certificate, since, if that were the case, the institution 
would be unable, where appropriate, to carry out its task of verification, the need 
for which must be determined on the basis of the particulars shown in the medical 
certificate. 
(see paras 42-43) 
See: T-135/95 Z v Commission [1996] ECR-SC I-A-519 and II-1413, paras 32 and 34; 
T-29/96 Schoch v Parliament [1997] ECR-SC I-A-219 and II-635, para. 38 
I-A - 252