JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fifth Chamber)

27 June 2000

Case T-47/97

Onno Plug

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease — Article 73 of the Staff Regulations — Articles 18 and 19 of the Rules on the insurance of officials against the risk of accident and of occupational disease — Rate of permanent partial invalidity — Res judicata — Action for compensation’

Full text in French II-527

Application for:

first, annulment of the Commission's implied decision rejecting the applicant's request of 22 February 1996 that it adopt a decision under Article 19 of the Rules on the insurance of officials of the European Communities against the risk of accident and of occupational disease without having new medical reports prepared and, second, compensation for the harm allegedly sustained by the applicant, amounting to the equivalent of 13 years' salary.

Held:

The application is dismissed. The applicant shall bear his own costs and those incurred by the Commission.

Summary

In order to comply with a judgment declaring an act void and to implement it fully, the institution must have regard not only to the operative part of the judgment but also to the grounds which led to it and constitute its essential basis, in so far as they are indispensable for the purpose of determining the exact meaning of what is stated in the operative part. It is those grounds which, on the one hand, identify the precise provision held to be illegal and, on the other, indicate the specific reasons which underlie the finding of illegality contained in the operative part and which the institution concerned must take into account when replacing the annulled act. (see para. 58) See: T-106/92 Frederiksen v Parliament [1995] ECRSC I-A-29 and II-99, para. 31

It is clear from Articles 17 to 22 of the Rules on insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease, first, that the expert medical opinions referred to in Article 18 are those which the institution may request in connection with the enquiry provided for in Article 17, in order to obtain all the particulars necessary to determine the nature of the disease, whether it has resulted from the official's occupation and the circumstances in which it arose and, second, that it is in the light of the report prepared following the enquiry and summarising the expert medical opinions thus drawn up that the doctor(s) appointed by the institution state his or their findings provided for in Article 19 and that only these findings or, where appropriate, the findings of a medical committee are binding on the institution. In that context, ‘expert medical opinion’ referred to in Article 18 of the rules must not be confused with the very specific concept of the ‘[findings of] the doctor(s) appointed by the institutions’ provided for in the third subparagraph of Article 17(2) and Article 19 of the Rules. Only an opinion which is given by the doctor representing the appointing authority or the medical committee and also stating the exact rate of permanent invalidity can form the basis on which the appointing authority can adopt a decision granting the lump sum provided for in Article 73 of the Staff Regulations. (see paras 70 and 71)

Permanent invalidity within the meaning of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations is equivalent to incapacity for work and therefore to the need for a replacement income in the form of an invalidity pension, whereas permanent invalidity within the meaning of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations is equivalent to impairment of physical or mental integrity. Consequently, to be unfit for work - an incapacity forming the subject-matter of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations - and to be suffering from 100% permanent invalidity under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations are two completely different things. Although total invalidity within the meaning of Article 73 generally involves 100% incapacity for work, the opposite is not necessarily true, as an official may be totally unfit for work within the meaning of Article 78 while suffering from only a very slight degree of partial permanent invalidity within the meaning of Article 73. (see paras 73 and 74)

An official is entitled to the benefits provided for in Article 73 of the Staff Regulations only where the triggering factor, namely the accident or occupational disease, occurred after he entered into the service of an institution. (see para. 99)

Judicial review of medical opinions may not extend to medical appraisals properly so-called, which must be considered definitive, provided that the conditions in which they are made are not irregular. On the other hand, the Court has jurisdiction to examine whether a medical opinion contains reasons enabling the reader to assess the considerations on which the conclusions which it contains were based and whether it has established a comprehensible link between the medical findings which it contains and the conclusions reached. (see para. 117) See: 257/81 K. v Council [1983] ECR 1, para. 17; 277/84 Jänscli v Commission [1987] ECR 4923, para. 15; T-165/89 Plug v Commission [1992] ECR II-367, para. 75