Case T‑370/20
KL
v
European investment Bank (EIB)
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber), 24 November 2021
(Civil service – EIB staff – State of health – Fitness to work – Unjustified absence – Action for annulment – Definition of invalidity – Unlimited jurisdiction – Disputes of a financial character – Retroactive payment of the invalidity pension – Action for damages)
1.      Officials – Staff of the European Investment Bank – Social security – Insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease – Invalidity – Definition – Evaluation in relation to the duties performed at the Bank
(Staff Regulations, Art. 78; Staff Regulations of the European Investment Bank, Art. 14)
(see paragraphs 83-89, 100)
2.      Officials – Staff of the European Investment Bank – Social security – Insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease – Invalidity – Invalidity Committee – Jurisdiction – Assessment of capacity of staff member to work outside the Bank – Exclusion
(see paragraphs 90-93)
3.      Actions brought by officials – Staff of the European Investment Bank – Application by analogy of Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations – Unlimited jurisdiction – Disputes of a financial character – Definition – Action seeking retrospective payment of an invalidity allowance – Inclusion
(Art. 266 TFEU; Staff Regulations, Art. 91(1)
(see paragraphs 109-113, 117-124)
Résumé
The applicant, KL, is employed by the European Investment Bank (EIB). After the applicant had several periods of absence, the EIB implemented the procedure before the Invalidity Committee, on the understanding that, until that committee had delivered its opinion, the applicant was regarded as suffering from total temporary incapacity. After evaluating the applicant's state of health, the Invalidity Committee unanimously concluded that he could no longer perform duties within the EIB, but was still capable of carrying on a professional activity on the open labour market. Consequently, the EIB made two decisions declaring the applicant fit for work and unjustifiably absent from the date on which it had asked him to return to work. Following the failure of the conciliation procedure, the applicant brought an action before the General Court in respect of those two decisions and of the decision of the President of the EIB upholding those decisions (‘the contested decisions').
The Court upholds the action and annuls the contested decisions. In its judgment, the Court establishes that the concept of invalidity in the provisions adopted in implementation of the EIB Staff Regulations is to be assessed in relation to the EIB and not in relation to the open labour market. The Court also applies the ‘unlimited jurisdiction' conferred on it by Article 91 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations') to ‘disputes of a financial character', applicable by analogy to EIB staff. Furthermore, it defines those two concepts.
Findings of the Court
First of all, as regards the admissibility of the documents forming the opinion of the Invalidity Committee, the Court points out that a document cannot be ruled out on the ground that the date it contains is not that on which the applicant was examined by that committee.
Next, as regards the concept of invalidity, the Court relies on an interpretation by analogy of Articles 78 and 5 of the Staff Regulations and on Article 51-1 of the transitional pension scheme regulations applicable to EIB staff from which it is apparent that a staff member declared invalid within the EIB may be gainfully employed outside that body, provided that the total of his or her various sources of income do not exceed the net remuneration which he or she received when working at the EIB.
Moreover, the Invalidity Committees established by the EIB are organs of that body and therefore do not have, from a legal point of view, competence to assess the applicant's ability to pursue professional duties outside it. Those committees have, from a legal point of view, competence to rule on the capacity of EIB staff members to work within the institution. For a ruling on the capacity of those persons to work outside the EIB, it is for committees established by the other institutions or by the national authorities to examine the person concerned.
By ruling on the applicant's capacity to perform activities on the open labour market, the Invalidity Committee therefore impinged on the sphere of competence of those committees, thus creating a risk of contradiction between its assessment of the applicant's capacity to work on the open labour market and those which might subsequently be issued by the Invalidity Committees established by the other institutions or the national authorities.
Therefore, the Court considers that the concept of invalidity, within the meaning of Article 46-1 of the transitional pension scheme regulations applicable to EIB staff and from Article 11.1 of the administrative measures applicable to EIB staff, adopted in implementation of the EIB Staff Regulations, is to be interpreted as referring to an EIB staff member who has been declared, by a Invalidity Committee established by the EIB, incapable of resuming his or her duties or equivalent duties within the EIB.
Lastly, the Court points out that it is appropriate to apply to disputes arising between the EIB and its staff the rule contained in the second sentence of Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations. That provision gives the Court, in disputes of a financial character, unlimited jurisdiction in the exercise of which it has the power, if appropriate, of its own motion to order the defendant to pay compensation for the harm caused by its fault and, in that event, to evaluate, in the light of all the circumstances of the case, the harm suffered ex æquo et bono.
Unlimited jurisdiction confers on the Court the task, inter alia, of providing a complete solution to the cases before it and of ensuring the practical effectiveness of the annulment judgments it pronounces in civil service cases. Where it exercises its unlimited jurisdiction, the EU Court does not issue directions to the institutions or bodies concerned, but has, if necessary, the power to replace them in order to take decisions which necessarily involve the conclusions it reaches during its legal assessment of the dispute.
In that regard, the Court points out that ‘disputes of a financial character' within the meaning of that provision are not only liability actions brought by the staff against an EU institution or body, but also any actions seeking payment by such an institution or body to a staff member of a sum which he or she considers is owing to him or her under the Staff Regulations or other measure governing their employment relationship.
In the present case, the dispute is of a financial character since the applicant is asking the Court to rule on the legality of the decision not to recognise his status as an ‘invalid' person and to order the EIB to pay him a sum of money. The decision to regard the applicant as ‘not invalid' has direct consequences for the continuance of the party's situation as a member of the EIB staff, and therefore on his remuneration and financial rights.
Moreover, the Court finds that, in order to adopt the new decision recognising the applicant's state of invalidity, the EIB has only circumscribed powers, requiring it to draw the administrative consequences of the Invalidity Committee's decision.
Therefore, the Court orders the EIB to pay the applicant the invalidity allowance. However, it dismisses his claim for compensation for non-material damage having considered that the applicant has failed to show that full compensation for that damage cannot be made by the annulment of the contested decisions together with an order for the EIB to pay him all the financial allowances of which he was deprived as a result of the contested decisions.