JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber)

23 March 2000

Case T-197/98

Charlotte Rudolph

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Time-limit for lodging a complaint — Notification of decision — Languages — Annulment of a pre-recruitment medical examination on the grounc of a false declaration’

Full text in French II-241

Application for:

annulment of the decision of the Commission of 17 November 1997 declaring the applicant's pre-recruitmen medical examination void and requiring her to undergo ; further examination of her physical fitness and of tin decision of the Commission of 7 December 1998 annullin] the decisions of 3 July and 14 December 1995 appointing the applicant as an official, and for compensation for the nonmaterial harm allegedly sustained by the applicant.

Held:

The Commission's decision of 17 November 1997 declaring the applicant's pre-recruitment medical examination void and requiring her to undergo a further medical examination in order to ascertain her physical fitness is annulled. The Commission is ordered to pay the applicant the sums corresponding to arrears in salary plus interest at the rate of 5.5% per annum from the date on which her salary ceased to be paid. The Commission is ordered to pay the applicant EUR 5000 by way of compensation for nonmaterial harm. The remainder of the application is dismissed. The applicant is ordered to bear 10% of her own costs. The Commission shall bear its own costs and 90% of those incurred by the applicant.

Summary

The questionnaire sent to a candidate before the pre-recruitment medical examination constitutes an important element of assessment for the medical officer responsible for determining whether a candidate is physically fit for a post in the Community civil service. It must be completed honestly and in full, failing which the pre-recruitment medical examination is irregular and may be declared void by the institution concerned. None the less, the candidate is not required to declare problems about which he did not feel it necessary to consult a doctor or follow a course of treatment or, where he did consult a doctor, to make his own diagnosis in order to complete the appropriate part of the questionnaire when the doctor consulted was unable to make a diagnosis. A candidate for recruitment meets his obligations in connection with the pre-recruitment medical examination when he answers honestly and fully the questions set out in the questionnaire and any questions put by the doctor responsible for the examination. (see paras 77, 82 and 83)

Although the Community judicature cannot substitute its own assessment for an opinion of a specifically medical nature, it is none the less required, when conducting its judicial review, to consider whether the decision of the appointing authority is based on a reasoned medical opinion establishing a comprehensible link between the medical findings which it contains and the conclusion which it draws. (see para. 86) See: 189/82 Seiler and Others v Council [1984] ECR 229, para. 15; T-10/93 A v Commission [1994] ECRSC I-A-119 and II-387, para. 61

The Court of First Instance has no jurisdiction to issue directions in the context of a review of legality under Article 91 of the Staff Regulations and cannot therefore order the defendant institution to reinstate an official. However, in an action of a financial character in which the Court has unlimited jurisdiction pursuant to the second sentence of Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations, the Court has jurisdiction to rule on the pecuniary claims for payment of arrears of the applicant's salary, plus interest. (see paras 33 and 92) See: T-15/93 Vienne v Parliament [1993] ECR II-1327, paras 41 and 42; T-588/93 G v Commission [1994] ECRSC I-A-277 and II-875, para. 26; T-130/96 Aquilino v Council [1998] ECRSC I-A-351 and II-1017, paras 41 and 42