Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2000:166
Date: 2000-06-27
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Invalidity pension;Costs;Effects of a judgment annulling a measure;Rules on cover
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded;Action for damages - unfounded

SUMMARY - CASE T-47/97 
Held: The application is dismissed. The applicant shall bear his 
own costs and those incurred by the Commission. 
Summary 
1. Officials — Actions - Annulling judgment - Effects — Obligation to adopt 
measures to comply with a judgment - Scope - Consideration of both the grounds 
and the operative part of the judgment 
(EC Treaty, Art. 176 (now Article 233 EC)) 
2. Officials — Social security — Insurance against accident and occupational 
disease — 'Expert medical opinion ' — Findings of the doctors appointed by the 
institutions — Distinction 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 73; Rules on insurance against the risk of accident and of 
occupational disease, Arts 17 to 22) 
3. Officials — Social security — Insurance against accident and occupational 
disease — Incapacity for work — Permanent invalidity of 100% — Distinct concepts 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 73 and 78) 
4. Officials — Social security — Insurance against accident and occupational 
disease — Cover limited to accidents occurring or diseases arising after the official 
has taken up his duties 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 73), 
5. Officials — Social security — Insurance against accident and occupational 
disease — Medical opinion — Judicial review — Limits 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 73) 
I-A - 120 
PLUG v COMMISSION 
6. Procedure - Costs - Costs caused unreasonably or vexatiously 
(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 87(3), second subpara.) 
1. In order to comply with a judgment declaring an act void and to implement it 
fully, the institution must have regard not only to the operative part of the judgment 
but also to the grounds which led to it and constitute its essential basis, in so far as 
they are indispensable for the purpose of determining the exact meaning of what is 
stated in the operative part. It is those grounds which, on the one hand, identify the 
precise provision held to be illegal and, on the other, indicate the specific reasons 
which underlie the finding of illegality contained in the operative part and which the 
institution concerned must take into account when replacing the annulled act. 
(see para. 58) 
See: T-106/92 Frederiksen v Parliament [1995] ECR-SC I-A-29 and II-99, para. 31 
2. It is clear from Articles 17 to 22 of the Rules on insurance against the risk of 
accident and of occupational disease, first, that the expert medical opinions referred 
to in Article 18 are those which the institution may request in connection with the 
enquiry provided for in Article 17, in order to obtain all the particulars necessary 
to determine the nature of the disease, whether it has resulted from the official's 
occupation and the circumstances in which it arose and, second, that it is in the light 
of the report prepared following the enquiry and summarising the expert medical 
opinions thus drawn up that the doctor(s) appointed by the institution state his or 
their findings provided for in Article 19 and that only these findings or, where 
appropriate, the findings of a medical committee are binding on the institution. In 
that context, 'expert medical opinion' referred to in Article 18 of the rules must not 
be confused with the very specific concept of the '[findings of] the doctor(s) 
appointed by the institutions' provided for in the third subparagraph of Article 17(2) 
and Article 19 of the Rules. Only an opinion which is given by the doctor 
representing the appointing authority or the medical committee and also stating the 
I-A - 121 
SUMMARY - CASE T-47/97 
exact rate of permanent invalidity can form the basis on which the appointing 
authority can adopt a decision granting the lump sum provided for in Article 73 of 
the Staff Regulations. 
(see paras 70 and 71) 
3. Permanent invalidity within the meaning of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations 
is equivalent to incapacity for work and therefore to the need for a replacement 
income in the form of an invalidity pension, whereas permanent invalidity within 
the meaning of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations is equivalent to impairment of 
physical or mental integrity. Consequently, to be unfit for work - an incapacity 
forming the subject-matter of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations - and to be 
suffering from 100% permanent invalidity under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations 
are two completely different things. Although total invalidity within the meaning 
of Article 73 generally involves 100% incapacity for work, the opposite is not 
necessarily true, as an official may be totally unfit for work within the meaning of 
Article 78 while suffering from only a very slight degree of partial permanent 
invalidity within the meaning of Article 73. 
(see paras 73 and 74) 
4. An official is entitled to the benefits provided for in Article 73 of the Staff 
Regulations only where the triggering factor, namely the accident or occupational 
disease, occurred after he entered into the service of an institution. 
(see para. 99) 
I-A - 122 
PLUG v COMMISSION 
5. Judicial review of medical opinions may not extend to medical appraisals 
properly so-called, which must be considered definitive, provided that the conditions 
in which they are made are not irregular. On the other hand, the Court has 
jurisdiction to examine whether a medical opinion contains reasons enabling the 
reader to assess the considerations on which the conclusions which it contains were 
based and whether it has established a comprehensible link between the medical 
findings which it contains and the conclusions reached. 
(see para. 117) 
See: 257/81 K. v Council [1983] ECR 1, para. 17; 277/84 Jänscli v Commission [1987] 
ECR 4923, para. 15; T-165/89 Plug v Commission [1992] ECR II-367, para. 75 
6. In staff cases, the Court must apply the second subparagraph of Article 87(3) of 
its Rules of Procedure and order the official to bear the costs which it considers he 
has unreasonably or vexatiously caused the institution to incur. Such an order must 
be made against an official who, where the institution concerned has displayed a 
diligent and cooperative approach in complying with a judgment concerning him, 
refuses to collaborate with it and who, having regard to the import of the law and 
the applicable case-law, brings an action the outcome of which he could easily 
foresee. 
(see para. 135) 
I-A - 123