62024TJ0530_RES
Case T‑530/24
FUvEuropean Parliament
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 October 2025
(Civil service – Officials – Social security – Article 73 of the Staff Regulations – Accident – Rejection of the accident report – Out of time submission of the accident report – Failure to observe the period of 10 working days from the occurrence of the accident – Concept of ‘lawful reason’)
Officials – Social security – Insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease – Accident – Out of time submission of the report – Rejection – Exception – Force majeure or lawful reason – Concept – Rejection of a report submitted out of time without force majeure or lawful reason – Breach of the principle of good administration and of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials – None
(Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 73(1); Rules on insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease, Arts 2(1) and 15(1) and (2))
(see paragraphs 38-40, 42-45, 48)
Officials – Social security – Insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease – Accident – Out of time submission of the report – Rejection – Obligation to state reasons – Scope
(Art. 296 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2)(c); Rules on insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease, Art. 15(2))
(see paragraph 41)
Officials – Social security – Insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease – Accident – Rules governing cover – Conditional upon satisfying a temporal condition with regard to the submission of reports – Incompatibility with the Staff Regulations – None
(Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 73(1); Rules on insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease, Art. 15(2))
(see paragraphs 57-61)
Résumé
In its judgment, the General Court dismisses the action brought by FU, an official of the European Parliament, by which that official sought the annulment of the decision of the Parliament rejecting her accident report (‘the contested decision’), and defines the concept of ‘lawful reason’ that enables an insured party to report an accident after the expiry of the period laid down in the Common Rules. (
1
)
In August 2023, during a trip in Greece, the applicant felt a pain in her right knee following a jump in the air. She then went to a doctor who advised her, inter alia, to undergo a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan, after the swelling in her knee had reduced.
In September 2023, while continuing to suffer knee pain once she had returned from her trip, the applicant had a consultation with her general practitioner, who asked her to undergo medical examinations. On the basis of the results of the MRI, an orthopaedic specialist recommended that the applicant consult a surgeon to obtain a second opinion and consider, if necessary, surgery. Subsequently, a surgeon and another specialist confirmed the need for surgery.
In November 2023, the applicant reported her accident to the Parliament. A few days later, by the contested decision, the institution informed the applicant of the rejection of her accident report, which that institution considered to be out of time.
Findings of the Court
The Court begins by stating that the Common Rules provide that insured parties who sustain an accident, or those entitled under them, must report the accident to the administration of the institution to which the insured party belongs. The period of 10 working days within which the accident report must be submitted runs from the date on which the accident occurred. However, that period may be extended in cases of force majeure or for any other lawful reason, and provided the insured party provides proof of the accident and establishes a causal link between that accident and the physical or mental impairment.
In that context, the concept of ‘lawful reason’ must be applied strictly, first, in that it constitutes an exception to a well-established obligation to submit an accident report within a period of 10 working days and, secondly, in so far as it relates to the provisions of EU law which confer entitlement to financial benefits.
In that regard, the concept of ‘lawful reason’ must be interpreted as meaning that the insured party must demonstrate that he or she was faced with an exceptional situation arising from causes which are not attributable to him or her and which relate to his or her inability to submit an accident report within 10 working days following the date on which the accident occurs.
Moreover, the mere production of evidence of the accident is not sufficient to justify the delay in reporting the accident. Nevertheless, even if the insured person cannot benefit from supplementary accident insurance cover in the absence of proof of force majeure or any other lawful reason, the insured party is still eligible for reimbursement of his or her medical expenses by the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme.
In the present case, given that the applicant, in her accident report, described the symptoms which she was able to determine on the day following the day of the accident, that the doctor consulted on that day advised her to undergo an MRI once she had returned from her trip and that the pain persisted, she could not have been unaware before the expiry of the period of 10 working days following the date on which the accident occurred that she had suffered an accident for the purposes of the Common Rules. She cannot therefore claim to have belatedly become aware of the seriousness of her injuries for the purpose of demonstrating that the delay in reporting her accident was justified by a lawful reason.
Furthermore, it is true that it is apparent from the accident report form that the accident report must be accompanied by a medical certificate issued by a doctor. However, there is no requirement that a full diagnosis be made in order to be able to report an accident. The Common Rules require only the submission of a medical certificate specifying the nature of the injuries and the probable consequences of the accident.
In the light of the foregoing considerations, the Court concludes that the applicant has not proved the existence of force majeure or a lawful reason which prevented her from complying with the period of 10 working days prescribed by the Common Rules.
(
1
)	Common rules on the insurance of officials of the European Communities against the risk of accident and of occupational disease, adopted on 13 December 2005 by the EU institutions pursuant to Article 73 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Common Rules’).