Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2000:46
Date: 2000-02-22
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Sick leave
Procedure: Staff cases - successful

SUMMARY - CASE T-171/98 
Summary 
1. Officials — Sick leave - Justification of sickness — Discrepancy between the 
medical certificates issued by the official's own doctor and the examining doctor — 
Obligation to refer the matter to the Invalidity Committee — Conditions 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 59(3)) 
2. Officials — Sick leave — Medical examination — Initiation of an arbitration 
procedure not offering the procedural guarantees laid down in Article 59 of the Staff 
Regulations — Illegality 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 59(3)) 
1. It follows from Article 59(3) of the Staff Regulations that the appointing authority 
is required to refer '[c]ases in dispute' to the Invalidity Committee. 
In certain circumstances, a genuine medical dispute which must be settled by the 
Invalidity Committee may be indicated by a discrepancy between the medical 
certificates issued by the official's own doctor and the examining doctor if both are 
issued within a short period. 
(see paras 37 and 41) 
2. A system whereby cases in dispute are referred to an arbitration procedure 
organised by an institution within the framework of the procedure to be followed in 
the event of absence on account of sickness is unlawful in that it deprives the 
official concerned of the procedural guarantees laid down in Article 59 of the Staff 
Regulations, where, unlike the system involving the Invalidity Committee, it does 
I-A - 24 
BIASUTTO v COUNCIL 
not provide for a thorough medical discussion between three independent doctors 
one of whom has the confidence of the official in question, who alone is in a 
position to know which doctor is most familiar with his health, and where it does 
not allow for a joint finding by the three doctors stating, in particular, the points on 
which they are agreed or on which their opinions differ. 
(see paras 44, 47, 48 and 51) 
I-A - 25