Order — ECLI:EU:T:2007:230
Date: 2007-07-12
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Appeals Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Appeals;Rules on cover
Procedure: Appeal - unfounded;Appeal - inadmissible;Staff cases

Summary 1. Officials – Social security – Insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease – Occupational disease – Definition (Staff Regulations, Art. 73; Rules on the insurance of officials of the European Communities against the risk of accident and occupational disease, Art. 3) 2. Appeals – Grounds – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of the assessment of evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 11(1)) 1. An ‘occupational disease’ is not limited to cases in which the permanent invalidity of the official has its origin exclusively in the performance of his duties, but also includes cases where the invalidity is the result of the aggravation of a pre-existing illness which originated elsewhere. In other words, if the aggravation, as a result of performance of duties in the service of the Communities, of a pre-existing illness renders an official incapable of continuing to perform his duties, that invalidity must be considered to have been caused by an occupational disease within the meaning of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations. In order for the appointing authority to be able to uphold a request for recognition as an occupational disease of the aggravation of a condition, it must, on the basis of the conclusions of the Medical Committee where referral to the Medical Committee has been requested, determine whether there has been such aggravation when it assesses the merits of such a request. The temporary nature of the aggravation of a disease, as a result of which the aggravation has ceased and can no longer be established when the authority rules on that request for recognition as an occupational disease, is, consequently, not irrelevant. Where it is not possible to establish such aggravation on the date on which it rules, the authority cannot find that the official concerned is suffering from an occupational disease. (see paras 36, 41-42) See: T‑122/89 F v Commission [1990] ECR II‑517, para. 14; T‑376/02 O v Commission [2004] ECR-SC I‑A‑349 and II‑1595, paras 68, 72 and 73 2. The court at first instance, in this case the Civil Service Tribunal, has exclusive jurisdiction, first, to establish the facts except where the substantive inaccuracy of its findings is apparent from the documents submitted to it and, second, to assess those facts. The assessment of the facts does not therefore constitute, save where the clear sense of that evidence has been distorted, a point of law which is subject, as such, to review by the Court of First Instance, as the appeal court. Such distortion must be obvious from the documents on the Court’s file, without there being any need to carry out a new assessment of the facts and the evidence. (see paras 45-47) See: C‑8/95 P New Holland Ford v Commission [1998] ECR I‑3175, para. 72; C‑551/03 P General Motors v Commission [2006] ECR I‑3173, para. 54; C‑167/04 P JCB Service v Commission [2006] ECR I‑8935, para. 108