Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2001:238
Date: 2001-09-20
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Third Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Legal certainty;Rules on cover
Procedure: Staff cases - successful

SUMMARY - CASE T-171/00 
Summary 
1. Officials - Social security - Insurance against accidents and occupational 
diseases — Exclusion of cover for accidents due to the practice of parachuting — 
Scope — Paragliding - Not included 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 73; Rules on the insurance of officials of the European 
Communities against the risk of accident and occupational disease, Art. 4(1) (b), 
third indent) 
2. Officials — Social security — Insurance against accidents and occupational 
diseases — Exclusion of cover for accidents due to the practice of sports regarded 
as dangerous - Concept of dangerous sports - Definition by reference to a list 
given for guidance - Breach of the principle of legal certainty - Unlawful 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 73; Rules on the insurance of officials of the European 
Communities against the risk of accident and occupational disease, Art. 4(1) (b), 
third indent) 
1. Paragliding cannot be regarded as parachuting within the meaning of the third 
indent of Article 4(1)(b) of the Rules on the insurance of officials of the European 
Communities against the risk of accident and occupational disease. The two sports 
are different. 
(see paras 31-36) 
2. Under the third indent of Article 4(1)(b) of the Rules on the insurance of officials 
of the European Communities against the risk of accident and occupational disease, 
'accidents shall not be covered by Article 73 of the Staff Regulations if they are due 
to ... [p]ractice of sports regarded as dangerous, such as boxing, karate, 
parachuting, speleology, underwater fishing and exploration with breathing 
equipment including containers for the supply of air or oxygen'. 
I-A - 188 
SPRUYT v COMMISSION 
That provision, in so far as it defines the concept of sports regarded as dangerous 
excluded from the coverage of risks provided for by Article 73 of the Staff 
Regulations, by reference to a list given for guidance of sports regarded as such, is 
in breach of the principle of legal certainty and is therefore unlawful. 
The principle of legal certainty cannot tolerate a situation where an official who is 
considering practising a sport not mentioned in the list contained in the third indent 
of Article 4(1)(b) of the Rules is required to weigh up whether that sport, in the 
light of the degree of similarity which it displays with one of those referred to in 
that list, may be considered by the Community administration to be regarded as 
dangerous. The same principle likewise cannot allow that administration, when 
confronted with a request for the application of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations 
to an accident which has occurred during the practice of a sporting activity, to have 
discretion to assess whether the activity in question belongs to the category of sports 
regarded as dangerous within the meaning of the abovementioned rules. 
(see paras 64-72, 84) 
See: 169/80 Gondrand Frères and Garancini [1981] ECR 1931, para. 17; 205/82 to 
215/82 Deutsche Milchkontor and Others [1983] ECR 2633, para. 30; 92/87 and 93/87 
Commission v France and United Kingdom [1989] ECR 405, para. 22; T-23/95 Bitha v 
Commission [1996] ECR-SCI-A-13 and II-45, paras 40 and 41; C-143/93 Van Es Douane 
Agenten [1996] ECR I-431, para. 27 
I-A - 189