Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2000:125
Date: 2000-05-11
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Single Judge
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Specific cases;Sickness insurance
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded

SUMMARY — CASE T-34/99 
Summary 
1. Officials - Decision adversely affecting an official - Obligation to state reasons 
- Scope — Sickness insurance - Decision rejecting a request for prior 
authorisation to follow a thermal cure 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 25, second para.) 
2. Officials - Social security - Sickness insurance - Request for prior approval 
to take a thermal cure — Individual assessment by the office responsible for settling 
claims 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 72(1); Rules on sickness insurance, Annex I, para. XI(1)) 
1. A reference to the unfavourable opinion of the medical officer constitutes 
adequate reasoning, albeit succinct, for an administrative decision rejecting a request 
for prior authorisation to take a thermal cure. There is no need for the institution 
automatically to attach to that decision or reproduce in its reasoning the content of 
the medical assessments made by the medical officer. As such assessments may be 
covered by medical secrecy or requirements of confidentiality, it is for the official 
concerned or for his normal doctor, if he disputes the findings of the medical 
officer, to request the institution to notify him of the medical assessments of the 
medical officer or to have them notified via the institution's medical service. 
(see paras 18 and 19) 
See: T-66/98 Gaspari v Parliament [1999] ECR-SC I-A-55 and II-287, paras 27, 28 and 
29 
I-A - 80 
PIPEAUX v PARLIAMENT 
2. Each request for prior authorisation to take a thermal cure submitted under 
paragraph XI(1) of Annex I to the rules on sickness insurance is to be assessed 
individually. It follows that the mere fact that the administration has in the past 
considered that a thermal cure was necessary for the person concerned is not 
binding on the office responsible for settling claims when subsequent requests are 
examined. 
(see para. 27) 
See: Gaspari v Parliament, cited above, para. 34 
I-A - 81