JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

14 December 2010

Case F-80/09

Erika Lenz

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Officials — Social security — Reimbursement of the costs of treatment provided by a ‘Heilpraktiker’ — Principle of non-discrimination)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Ms Lenz seeks annulment of the decision of the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of the European Union institutions refusing to reimburse the costs of medical treatment provided by a ‘Heilpraktiker’ (healer or non-medical practitioner) established in Germany and not a qualified doctor.

Held: The action is dismissed. The applicant is ordered to pay all the costs.

Summary

1. Officials — Decision adversely affecting an official — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based

(Staff Regulations, Art. 25, second para.)

2. Officials — Social security — Sickness insurance — Medical expenses — Reimbursement

(Staff Regulations, Art. 72(1))

3. Officials — Equal treatment — Limits — Advantage unlawfully granted

1. The administration satisfies its obligation to state the reasons on which a decision refusing to reimburse medical expenses is based by providing a statement of reasons for the decision to reject the complaint, since the reasons for the latter decision are deemed to be the same as those for the decision against which the complaint was directed.

(see para. 29)

See:

T-377/08 P Commission v Birkhoff [2009] ECR-SC I-B-1-133 and II-B-1-807, paras 55 and 56

2. The definition of the scope of the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of the European Union institutions is a matter for the Union legislature. The fact that civil servants and former civil servants of a Member State are able, under their social security scheme and private health insurance funds, to obtain reimbursement of the costs of treatment provided by a ‘Heilpraktiker’ (healer or practitioner who is not a qualified doctor) does not, in itself, in any way imply that European officials and former officials should be granted the same possibility, particularly as it does not appear manifestly inappropriate, either in principle or in practice, to preclude reimbursement of the costs of treatment provided by a ‘Heilpraktiker’ who is not medically qualified, in the light of the principle of social security cover on which the first paragraph of Article 72(1) of the Staff Regulations is based.

European officials and former officials established in that Member State and civil servants and former civil servants of the Member State concerned come under different social security schemes and are therefore not in comparable situations.

(see para. 44)

See:

T-66/95 Kuchlenz-Winter v Commission [1997] ECR II-637, para. 64

3. The principle of equal treatment must be reconciled with the principle of legality, according to which a person may not rely, in support of his claim, on an unlawful act committed in favour of a third party, since such an approach would be tantamount to laying down a principle of ‘equal treatment in illegality’. An unlawful act committed in favour of another person affiliated to the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of the European Union institutions cannot lead the Union judicature to determine that there has been discrimination and therefore an unlawful act in respect of an official. That being so, the mere fact that the Sickness Insurance Scheme has, despite the rules laid down by the general implementing provisions for Article 72 of the Staff Regulations, adopted by the Commission, reimbursed a person the costs of treatment provided by a ‘Heilpraktiker’ (healer or practitioner who is not a qualified doctor) cannot confer the same entitlement on the official concerned.

(see para. 45)

See:

F-4/07 Skoulidi v Commission [2008] ECR-SC I-A-1-47 and II-A-1-229, para. 81