Case T‑567/16

Robert McCoy

v

Committee of the Regions

(Civil service — Officials — Social security — Occupational disease — Occupational origin of the disease — Fifth paragraph of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations — Invalidity Committee — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Liability — Non-material damage)

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber), 23 October 2018

Actions brought by officials — Judgment annulling a measure — Effects — Obligation to implement — Period of waiting extended by unlawfulness of a decision of an institution — Compensation for non-material harm through appropriate reparation

Officials — Non-contractual liability of the institutions — Conditions — Compensation for loss caused to an official or member of staff — Administration’s duty to have regard for the interests of officials — Scope

Actions for annulment — Judgment annulling a measure — Effects — Obligation to implement — Scope — Both the operative part and the grounds of the judgment to be taken into account — Retroactive effect of annulment — Obligation to ensure that the annulled measure is not replaced by a measure affected by the same irregularity

EU law — Principles — Duty to act within a reasonable time — Infringement in an administrative procedure — Effects — Consequences of an infringement committed in the context of the examination of an application for recognition of the occupational origin of an official’s disease

Officials — Social security — Insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease — Establishing whether a disease results from an official’s occupation — Powers of the Invalidity Committee

Officials — Invalidity — Invalidity Committee — Judicial review — Scope — Limits — Complex medical assessments — Verification of factual accuracy of the evidence and that all the relevant information has been taken into account

Actions brought by officials — Action against a decision rejecting a complaint — Admissibility — Obligation to rule on pleas directed against the decision rejecting the complaint — Pleas devoid of independent content or purely confirmatory decision — None

See the text of the decision. (see paras 53-55)

Judicial review of the decisions of an invalidity committee 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, judicial review may extend to questions concerning the constitution and proper functioning of the invalidity committee and also the regularity of the opinions which they issue. From that point of view, the Court has jurisdiction to examine whether the opinion contains a statement of reasons enabling the reader to assess the considerations on which the conclusions which it contains were based and whether it establishes a comprehensible link between its medical findings and the conclusions reached by the invalidity committee concerned. As with the review carried out in areas involving complex assessments, the EU judicature must establish, among other things, not only whether the evidence relied on is factually accurate, reliable and consistent, but also whether that evidence contains all the relevant information which must be taken into account to assess a complex situation, and whether it is capable of substantiating the conclusions drawn from it. (see paras 67, 98)

Where an invalidity committee is dealing with complex medical issues concerning the causal link between the condition suffered by the person concerned and his occupation with an institution, it is for that committee to indicate the information on the file on which it relies and, in the event of significant divergence, to give the reasons why it differs from certain earlier and relevant medical reports more favourable to the person concerned. Moreover, even though an invalidity committee, deliberating pursuant to Article 78 of the Staff Regulations, may reach different conclusions from those adopted by the medical committee under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations, the fact remains that it is incumbent on it to state the reasons which led it to differ from the assessments contained in the medical reports which allowed recognition of the occupational origin of the disease under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations, and to provide those reasons clearly and comprehensibly, either in its findings communicated to the appointing authority, or in its summary medical report that may be drawn up thereafter. (see paras 76, 77)

In complex situations where the origin of the official’s disease lies in a number of causes, both occupational and extra-occupational, and physical or psychological, which have each contributed to the development of that disease, it is for the Medical Committee to ascertain whether the official’s performance of his duties in the service of the Union’s institutions has a direct link with his disease, for example, as a trigger for that disease. In such cases, it is not required, for the disease to be recognised as having an occupational origin, that it should have its sole, basic, preponderant or predominant cause in the performance of duties. (see para. 102)

It is for an invalidity committee, according to its terms of reference, to provide medical appraisals, and not appraisals of a legal nature, on the question of whether the invalidity arose from an occupational disease. It must therefore be ascertained whether, from a medical point of view, an official’s invalidity results from an occupational disease, the origin of which is to be found in his working conditions. (see para. 107)

See the text of the decision. (see paras 113, 114)

See the text of the decision. (see paras 119, 120)

The failure to examine a summary medical report by the appointing authority, when the latter has been invited to consult it as an important document for handling a complaint, must be regarded as a failure to control the proceedings of an invalidity committee. Examination of that report would have enabled the institution concerned to verify whether the committee had complied with its legal and procedural obligations. Moreover, in the absence of consultation with the doctors on the invalidity committee, other than the one designated by the institution, the appointing authority does not guarantee compliance with the principle of impartiality when examining the regularity of its work. More specifically, it must ensure not only that the institution acts impartially, but also that its actions are designed as such with regard to the official concerned and third parties. Accordingly, the institution concerned did not carry out a full review of the proceedings of the invalidity committee and did not satisfactorily guarantee the principle of impartiality. (see paras 138, 140, 142, 143)

See the text of the decision. (see paras 147, 148)

See the text of the decision. (see paras 152-154, 156)

See the text of the decision. (see paras 164, 165)