Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2003:44
Date: 2003-02-26
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Prior administrative complaint;Insurance against accident and occupational disease
Procedure: Action for damages - unfounded;Staff cases - successful

SUMMARY - CASE T-212/01 
Summary 
1. Officials - Actions - Prior complaint - Same purpose and submissions -
Pleas and arguments not appearing in the complaint, but closely linked to it -
Admissibility 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) 
2. Officials - Social security - Insurance against accidents and occupational 
diseases - Allowance for accidents and occupational diseases - Lump sum for 
permanent invalidity - Allowance for injury or permanent disfigurement -
Limitation of combined amount to the maximum payable as lump sum for total 
permanent invalidity - Not permissible 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 73; Rules on the Insurance of Officials against the Risk of 
Accident and of Occupational Disease, Arts 12 and 14) 
1. The rule of consistency between the complaint and the application requires any 
plea put forward before the Court, if it is to be admissible, to have been raised 
already in the context of the pre-litigation procedure, so that the administration may 
be sufficiently precisely aware of the criticisms made against the disputed decision. 
However, while the statement of the form of order applied for may contain only 
'heads of claim' based on the same matters as the heads of claim raised in the 
complaint, the former may none the less be developed before the Court by the 
submission of pleas and arguments which need not necessarily appear in the 
complaint but must be closely linked to it. 
(see para. 33) 
See: T-58/91 Booss and Fischer v Commission [1993] ECR II-147, para. 83; T-496/93 
Allo v Commission [1995] ECR-SC I-A-127 and II-405, para. 26 
I-A - 72 
LUCACCIONI v COMMISSION 
2. The lump sum paid in the event of the permanent invalidity of an official, 
pursuant to Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and Article 12 of the Rules on the 
Insurance of Officials against the Risk of Accident and of Occupational Disease, and 
the allowance paid under Article 14 of those rules relate to different forms of harm. 
Unlike Articles 73 and 12, which compensate for harm to actual bodily or mental 
health, in other words for the victim's resulting invalidity, Article 14 compensates 
an official for any injury or permanent disfigurement which, although not affecting 
his capacity for work, constitutes a physical defect and has an adverse effect on his 
social relations. Article 14 is thus intended to compensate for the actual harm, once 
proven, which the physical defect causes to the victim's social relationships, 
regardless of the invalidity which that injury or disfigurement might also entail. 
Limiting the combined amount of the sums payable under Articles 12 and 14 to the 
maximum payable under Article 12 would, in certain cases, have the effect of 
preventing or limiting compensation for the forms of harm covered by Article 14, 
despite the fact that they are clearly of a different nature. Since it certainly does not 
appear to be an implicit rule that is obviously to be deduced from the Insurance 
Rules, but a new rule, and one which is likely to lead to a breach of the principle 
of equal treatment, it is not permissible. 
(see paras 42. 45-46) 
See: Opinion of Advocate General La Pergola, C-76/95 Commission v Royale belge 
[1996] ECR I-5505. point 30 
I-A - 73