Order — ECLI:EU:F:2013:217
Date: 2013-12-16
Language of the case: French
Court formation: First Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded;Action for damages - unfounded

Summary Officials — Administration’s duty to have regard for the welfare of officials — Scope — Stricter obligation where an official’s mental health is affected (Staff Regulations, Art. 24) The administration’s duty to have regard for the welfare of officials reflects the balance of reciprocal rights and obligations established by the Staff Regulations in the relationship between the administration and its staff. That balance implies, inter alia, that when the administration takes a decision concerning the situation of an official, it must take into consideration all the factors which may affect its decision, and when doing so it should take into account not only the interests of the service but also those of the official concerned. The duty to have regard for the welfare of officials requires the administration, where there is doubt as to the medical origin of the difficulties encountered by an official in performing the tasks falling to him, to take all necessary steps to dispel that doubt. Moreover, the obligations imposed on the administration by the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials are substantially reinforced when what is at issue is the particular situation of an official in respect of whom there are doubts regarding his mental health and, consequently, his ability to defend his own interests. Consequently, in that particular context, the onus is on the administration to insist on the official’s agreeing to undergo a further medical examination, in particular relying on the right of the institution to have the official examined by the medical officer, pursuant to the third subparagraph of Article 59(1). (see paras 45-46) See: 28 May 1980, 33/79 and 75/79 Kuhner v Commission, para. 22; 29 June 1994, C‑298/93 P Klinke v Court of Justice, para. 38 13 December 2006, F‑17/05 de Brito Sequeira Carvalho v Commission, para. 72; 28 October 2010, F‑92/09 U v Parliament, paras 65 and 85