Judgment — ECLI:EU:F:2014:51
Date: 2014-04-10
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Second Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded

Summary 1. Officials — Social security — Insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease — Medical Committee — Organisation — Obligation to adopt rules of procedure — None — Obligation to hold a formal vote — None (Staff Regulations, Art. 73; Rules on insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease, Art. 22(3)) 2. Officials — Social security — Insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease — Expert medical report — Obligation on the Medical Committee to provide a statement of reasons — Scope (Staff Regulations, Art. 73; Rules on insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease, Art. 22(3)) 3. Officials — Social security — Insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease — Expert medical report — Collegial operation of the Medical Committee — Consideration of a case and preparation of final report based on a majority view — Validity — Conditions (Staff Regulations, Art. 73; Rules on insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease, Art. 22(3)) 1. In the context of an application for recognition of the occupational origin of an official’s disease, the task of the Medical Committee is to make its assessment of medical questions in complete objectivity and independence, which implies that its discretion must be unlimited. That discretion would be undermined if the Committee, which is constituted ad hoc for each individual case submitted for its assessment and is therefore not a permanent body, were obliged to adopt rules of procedure in each case. That being so, it must be permissible for the Medical Committee to decide that, in the light of the particular circumstances of the case before it, it considers itself capable of fulfilling its task without necessarily having to adopt formal, detailed rules concerning its operation, which is moreover not required by Article 22(3) of the Common rules on the insurance of officials of the European Communities against the risk of accident and of occupational disease, which came into force on 1 January 2006. Furthermore, none of the provisions of those rules requires the Medical Committee to hold a formal vote before adopting its decision. (see paras 74, 79, 98) See: 19 January 1988, 2/87 Biedermann v Court of Auditors, para. 16 12 December 2012, F‑90/11 BS v Commission, para. 38, on appeal before the General Court of the European Union, Case T‑83/13 P 2. In the context of an application for recognition of the occupational origin of an official’s disease, in view of the task of the Medical Committee, which is to deliver an opinion on issues of a medical nature, the obligation to state reasons imposed on it means solely that it must explain the procedure that led it, on the basis of the evidence before it, to the medical findings which it made in its final report. There is no obligation under Article 22(3) of the Common rules on the insurance of officials of the European Communities against the risk of accident and of occupational disease, which came into force on 1 January 2006, to cite scientific documents supporting the views held by the majority of the members of the Medical Committee. All that is important, in that regard, is that the final report should contain a statement of reasons enabling the reader to assess the considerations on which the conclusions which it contains were based and that it should establish a sufficiently comprehensible link between its medical findings and the conclusions reached by the Committee. (see paras 88, 120) 3. In the context of an application for recognition of the occupational origin of an official’s disease, the Medical Committee’s final report is not finalised until its two signatories have had the opportunity to take into account the minority opinion. The mere fact that, having examined the points raised in the minority opinion, the other members of the Medical Committee are not persuaded that the findings set out in the report prepared on the Committee’s behalf should be amended does not constitute an infringement of the terms of the Medical Committee’s mandate. (see para. 108)