1.

In the first instance we must examine the application for the annulment of the implied rejection of the applicant's complaint of 12 February 1971. Since this application contains various requests it may be divided into several parts. (a) In the foreground there clearly stands the claim for admission of an occupational disease allegedly caused by working conditions in the printing department of the Commission. In the view of the applicant it is justified on the basis of the report of 5 December 1968 alone but the Commission regards this report as insufficient and therefore seeks a further examination of the applicant. In examining this point it must first be clarified what the requirements are for establishing occupational disease under the Community law relating to officials. This problem has no simple solution since the Staff Regulations do not contain a definition and the implementing provisions of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations which are to contain further details have not yet been adopted. As always where there exists a lacuna in Community law we must make an attempt to deduce certain criteria on the basis of the text of Community law, by making reference to national law and, in the present case, by looking at the relevant recommendations of the Commission. In so doing we must not seek guidance in national systems containing lists of occupational diseases which establish a presumption for the causal connexion with the exercise of an occupation since they are designed for situations which are closely defined and in addition vary considerably from one another. Apart from these we may accept the Commission's definition (the applicant made no attempt to formulate one) and come to the following conclusions. Occupational diseases (in the public service) are those which occur in the course of and by reason of the performance of official duties and where it is established that the performance of those duties was the principal or the predominant cause of the disease or of the aggravation of an existing disease. At the very least reliable proof must be required that the performance of the duties is a cause and of course the proper judgment can only be made by qualified doctors. In respect of these requirements we may follow the Commission and make reference to the national legislation and case-law and the problem of occupational diseases in the public service (in so far as there is not a special system for officials as in German law). Reference may also be made to the recommendation of the Commission for the adoption of a European list of occupational diseases (JO 1962, p. 2188) and the Commission's recommendation on the requirements for compensation in the case of occupational diseases (JO 1966, p. 2696) since they also state that they must be ‘diseases which are principally caused by the occupational activity’ and they emphasize that it must be sufficiently shown that the diseases were caused by the occupation. Finally it is relevant that the draft of rules for implementing Article 73 of the Staff Regulations were also apparently drawn up on this basis. However if we apply the principles so ascertained to the present case a number of objections may be raised against the applicant's view that the 1968 report is sufficient basis for the admission of a connexion between his sickness and his occupation. It is also relevant that the duty of the Invalidity Committee at the time was to examine whether the applicant was permanently unfit for work within the meaning of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations. An examination of his state of health at that time (that is in December 1968) was therefore essential; emphasis was not however placed on finding the causes of any disease there might be. For that reason the Invalidity Committee did not undertake systematic tests of the applicant's allergy or of the solutions used but was content to rely on references to tests made in 1964 and 1966 (although the results of the first test were not known and the 1966 test apparently led to the conclusion that the plaintiff had no particular susceptibility). This also explains why the Invalidity Committee did not examine the question whether the applicant's work as a chauffeur from 1952 to 1958 (which also brought him into contact with irritant solutions) could have been a cause of the disease of the respiratory organs. Seen in this light it also becomes comprehensible that the somewhat incidental observations of the Invalidity Committee as to the causes of the disease are formulated in a very guarded and vague manner. I here refer to the statement ‘as to the etiology of the bronchitis, this is difficult to specify’. I also refer to the observations of the Invalidity Committee on the views of other doctors ‘who brought up the matter of solvent-based products used by Mr Vellozzi for some years in the course of his work’ that ‘this theory cannot be dismissed’ and I also refer to the sentence in the report: ‘on the other hand according to the evidence of the party concerned his work was carried out in humid and poorly ventilated premises which may have been a contributory cause of his bronchitis’. These must be taken into account in considering the conclusion drawn by the applicant and deciding what weight should be placed on the sentence ‘without saying that there are the sole cause, it may in all fairness be accepted that the conditions in which Mr Vellozzi worked for eight years are largely the cause of his bronchitis’. If these statements are viewed together then it can hardly be said that the report contains a definite assertion that the occupation of the applicant was a principal cause of his disease. It must also be remembered that the report mentions that ‘lack of cooperation by the party concerned’ did not allow certain examination to be carried out properly. It is also expressly stated that the report was completed ‘without the undersigned doctors having been able to examine the medical file of the party concerned at the EEC’. It can thus be concluded that the examination was not as comprehensive as was thought necessary if a reliable statement of the cause of the disease was to be made. Finally it is also relevant that the report of another doctor of 6 April 1971 submitted by the applicant with his application only speaks in a very indefinite manner of ‘probability of allergy’ and states that the applicant has ‘an obstructive syndrome of an allergic nature which most probably relates to his previous occupation between 1960 and 1968’. Therefore in this report as well it is concluded that ‘closer examination would perhaps make it possible to determine exactly how the present illness started’. Thus all these considerations hardly support the conclusion that the report of 5 December 1968 on its own is sufficient basis for the admission of the applicant's occupational disease. On the contrary we must rather accept the view of the Commission that further examinations are necessary (and of course all earlier medical documents are also relevant for the examination of the question of the cause). However it is thus clear that the rejection of the first point of the complaint lodged by the applicant cannot be challenged. (b) Secondly the applicant seeks in his official complaint payment of all the medical expense which he has already incurred or may incur in the future on the grounds that he had to have treatment for occupational disease and must continue to have such treatment. This claim must be seen in the context of head 3 of the application seeking that the Commission shall be ordered to pay medical and pharmaceutical expenses amounting to Bfrs 100000. The part of the original claim relating to expenses which may be incurred in the future has evidently been dropped. However examination ot this claim snows immediately that even in its modified form it cannot be accepted. It is sufficient to refer to the previous statements which have shown that it must first be reliably determined whether the applicant has an occupational disease at all. What has to be clearly determined is whether Article 73 of the Staff Regulations is applicable, that is to say, the provision whereby an official suffering from occupational disease is entitled to recover even those expenses which are not covered under Article 72 of the Staff Regulations. In addition it must be stated even if the existence of occupational disease is admitted, it is not certain that all the expenses claimed by the applicant result from that disease. Thus even where the existence of occupational disease has been admitted it must in each case be determined by experts which of the expenses relate to its treatment. Only then it is possible to determine the extent of the claim. Thus it is certain that the Commission was also justified in not allowing the second claim in the complaint and ordering a new examination to enable a proper solution to be found to the problem raised. (c) Thirdly and finally the applicant also claimed that he was suffering 40 % invalidity relying on a certificate from an institute in Rome. This claim is now also to be regarded in the context of the claims formulated in the application whereby admission of only 30 % invalidity is sought on the basis of another certificate. Again it can be shown without difficulty that, even in this modified form, the application cannot be successful. The appointing authority is really under no obligation to admit an alleged disability solely on the basis of medical certificates submitted by officials. This is evident since an Invalidity Committee is provided for in the Staff Regulations (Annex II, Articles 7 and 9) composed of three doctors which is therefore able to make a judgment on a broader basis and therefore more objectively. This Committee is furthermore not restricted to determining the permanent total invalidity since Article 59 of the Staff Regulations provided in general terms that ‘the case of any official whose sick leave totals more than twelve months in any period of three years’ may be referred to it. Consequently the Commission was justified in refusing to admit partial invalidity solely on the basis of the certificates submitted by the applicant and, especially as the report of the Invalidity Committee of 5 December 1968 only refers to ‘slight symptoms of bronchitis’, it was also justified in ordering the initiation of a fresh invalidity procedure. (d) Altogether it may be held that the first claim for the annulment of the rejection of the complaint must be dismissed as unfounded.