Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2012:694
Date: 2012-12-13
Language of the case: French
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 - decision unnecessary

Summary 1. Appeals — Interest in bringing proceedings — Examination by the Court of its own motion — Event subsequent to the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal having removed the prejudicial effect thereof as regards the appellant — Appeal not capable of securing an advantage — No need to adjudicate 2. Appeals — Pleas in law — Incorrect assessment of the facts — Inadmissibility — Review by the General Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 257 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 11(1)) 3. Appeals — Pleas in law — Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 48(2), 139(2) and 144) 4. Officials — Social security — Insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease — Establishing the existence of an occupational disease — Access by the official to documents in the medical file — Indirect access — Exception — Documents also having to appear in the personal file (Staff Regulations, Arts 26 and 73; Rules on insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease, Art. 16) 5. Actions brought by officials — Action for damages brought without a pre-litigation procedure in accordance with the Staff Regulations — Inadmissibility (Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) 6. Actions brought by officials — Unlimited jurisdiction — Possibility of an order of the Court’s own motion that the defendant institution pay compensation — Optional (Staff Regulations, Art. 91(1)) 1. See the text of the decision. (see paras 35, 41-42) See: C‑535/06 P Moser Baer India v Council [2009] ECR I‑7051, para. 24 and the case-law cited therein T‑355/04 and T‑446/04 Co-Frutta v Commission [2010] ECR II‑1, paras 42 and 43 2. See the text of the decision. (see para. 76) See: T‑222/07 P Kerstens v Commission [2008] ECR-SC I‑B‑1-37 and II‑B‑1-267, paras 60 to 62 and the case-law cited therein 3. See the text of the decision. (see para. 77) See: C‑229/05 P PKK and KNK v Council [2007] ECR I‑439, para. 61; C‑354/04 P Gestoras Pro Amnistía and Others v Council [2007] ECR I‑1579, para. 30; C‑97/08 P Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission [2009] ECR I‑8237, para. 38 4. In the procedure for the recognition of the occupational origin of a disease, the file which serves as a basis for the doctors or the Medical Committee to appraise the occupational nature of a disease is of a medical nature and, accordingly, may be consulted only indirectly through the intermediary of a doctor appointed by the official. Factors of an administrative nature which may appear in that file and have an influence on the administrative status of the official must also appear in the personal file where, pursuant to Article 26 of the Staff Regulations, the official may consult them directly. All the documents submitted to the doctors or to the Medical Committee thus come within the scheme of the Common Rules on the insurance of officials against the risk of accident and of occupational disease and it is therefore necessary to place some of them in the official’s personal file, making it possible for him to acquaint himself with them, only where those documents are used for the appraisal or alteration of the official’s administrative status by the institution to which he belongs. (see para. 89) See: C‑283/90 P Vidrányi v Commission [1991] ECR I‑4339, paras 24 and 25 5. See the text of the decision. (see paras 110-113, 118) See: 9/75 Meyer-Burckhardt v Commission [1975] ECR 1171, paras 10 and 11; 106/80 Fournier v Commission [1981] ECR 2759, paras 15 to 18; 401/85 Schina v Commission [1987] ECR 3911, para. 9 T‑84/91 Meskens v Parliament [1992] ECR II‑2335, para. 33; T‑53/92 Piette de Stachelski v Commission [1993] ECR II‑35, para.18; T‑17/90, T‑28/91 and T‑17/92 Camara Alloisio and Others v Commission [1993] ECR II‑841; T‑27/92 Camera-Lampitelli and Others v Commission [1993] ECR II‑873, para. 28; T‑79/92 Ditterich v Commission [1994] ECR-SC I‑A‑289 and II‑907, para. 40; T‑500/93 Y v Court of Justice [1996] ECR-SC I‑A‑335 and II‑977; T‑15/96 Liao v Council [1997] ECR-SC I‑A‑329 and II‑897, para. 27; T‑181/97 Meyer and Others v Court of Justice [1998] ECR-SC I‑A‑151 and II‑481, para. 22; T‑253/97 Giegerich v Commission [1999] ECR-SC I‑A‑233 and II‑1177, para. 18; T‑241/03 Marcuccio v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I‑A‑2-111 and II‑A‑2-517, para. 52; T‑66/05 Sack v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I‑A‑2-229 and II‑A‑2-1487, para. 35 6. See the text of the decision. (see para. 122)