I —

Having been employed by the European Parliament from 1 May 1975, as a “special adviser” (Article 5 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities), B. became an official and medical officer of that institution on 1 February 1977. On 22 February 1978 B. wrote to Mr H. Nord, Secretary-General of the European Parliament, complaining that his health had deteriorated owing in his view to the deplorably unhygienic condition of his consulting room. He pointed out that he had already raised that question with the administration on several occasions and that owing to the state of his health he had had to work part-time since 31 January 1978. He therefore asked for an impartial inquiry to be held to ascertain the cause and the extent of what he called an “occupational” disease. In so doing he was referring, by implication but without any doubt, to Article 73 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and also to the Rules on the Insurance of Officials of the European Communities against the Risk of Accident and of Occupational Disease (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”), adopted pursuant to the said Article 73 by the European Parliament as far as he was concerned on 27 January 1977. Articles 17 to 23 of the Rules determine the procedure and functioning of the “Medical Committee” for the purpose of establishing the occupational nature of any invalidity. On 6 March 1978 the Secretary-General assured B. that he would do all that he possibly could to contribute to the restoration of his health. He promised him that in the very near future experts would consider how his consulting room could be improved. He expressed his “personal” view that B.'s request for an inquiry to be held to establish the extent and origin of the sickness of which he complained ought to be granted and he informed B. that Mr Vinci, Director-General for Administration, Personnel and Finance at the European Parliament, would get in touch with him on that question. On 21 or 22 March 1978 the medical officer of the Council of Europe, and the other members of a “Committee of Inquiry”, in the company of an architect and B., inspected the latter's premises in the Schuman Building. Finding that B.'s working conditions appeared to be poor and that his consulting room was not suitable for its purpose, the medical officer suggested a number of improvements. On 16 April 1978 B. wrote to the Secretary-General in order to express his satisfaction at the efficiency with which the expert inspection of his consulting room had been conducted, to convey to him certain observations concerning the officials belonging to the administration of the Parliament's Secretariat and to request him once again to initiate the procedure relating to occupational disease provided for by the Staff Regulations “since the expert report had unequivocally concluded that his consulting room was pathogenic”. He seemed to be referring to Article 17 of the Rules. On 13 June 1978 B. produced a certificate signed by Dr Stein, his own doctor, certifying that owing to his state of health he needed three months' sick leave. As from that date he ceased work, even part-time, at the European Parliament. In a reply dated 16 June 1978 the Director-General for Administration informed him that he was planning “to set up a ‘Medical Board’with instructions to give an opinion on: — His present state of health; — The possible connexion between his state of health and his working conditions at the Parliament; — The advisability of initiating the procedure in the Staff Regulations for retiring him on the ground of invalidity.” He asked B. to give him at the earliest opportunity the name of the doctor whom he was appointing to be a member of the Medical Board, on which ä doctor appointed by the institution and a doctor appointed by agreement between the first two doctors would also sit. This expression “Medical Board” is ambiguous because it appears to embrace both the Invalidity Committee referred to in Article 53 of the Staff Regulations and in Article 7 of Annex II thereto and the Medical Committee referred to in Article 23 of the Rules which I have already mentioned. It constitutes a tertium genus since none of those provisions mentions a “board”; yet there is no doubt that both the administration and the applicant had in mind primarily the “Medical Committee” and that the procedure for retirement on the ground of invalidity under Article 78 was not to be initiated until after the conclusions of that committee were known. On 13 July 1978 B. informed Mr Van Nuffel, Director for Personnel and Social Affairs at the European Parliament, that he was appointing Dr P. Stein to look after his interests on the “Committee of Inquiry”. On 1 December 1978 Mr Van Nuffel notified B. that Dr H. Maddens would represent the institution on the “Medical Board”. The setting up of this “Board” encountered numerous difficulties and its business had not been completed on 12 October 1979, the date when the application in this case was registered; each party blames the other for the delay. On 21 June 1979 Mr Opitz, acting Secretary-General of the European Parliament, notified B. that, since his sick leave totalled more than twelve months in a period of three years (the last subparagraph of Article 58 (1) of the Staff Regulations), he had decided to refer his case to the Invalidity Committee and he asked B. to forward to him the name of the doctor of his choice to look after his interests. On 2 July 1979 B. informed the acting Secretary-General that he would be represented on the Invalidity Committee by Dr P. Stein, the doctor whom he had already instructed nearly a year before to look after his interests on the “Committee of Inquiry”, whilst emphasizing that in his view the procedure already under way for obtaining an expert opinion on the question whether he was suffering from an occupational disease had priority and that it was advisable to conclude it before the Invalidity Committee commenced work. For its part, the administration appointed Dr Maddens whom it had already instructed to look after its interests on the Medical Board. Relations between those two doctors became so acrimonious that the former lodged a complaint against the latter with the Ordre Belge des Médecins [Belgian Medical Association] and B. even complained to the administration that it had prevented him from taking out invalidity insurance with the Van Breda company or had not intervened on his behalf to enable him to take out such insurance. However, those claims were rejected by an order of the Judge acting as President of the Court of Justice dated 5 December 1979 ([1979] ECR 3635). On 10 August 1979 B. informed the Director for Personnel and Social Affairs that he intended to submit a complaint under Article 90 (2) of the Staff Regulations on the ground that the Invalidity Committee had been set up before the Medical Board had delivered its opinion. Since the doctors representing B. and the administration respectively on the Invalidity Committee could not agree on the appointment of a third person, the President of the Court of Justice, following requests made by the Secretary-General of the European Parliament on 10 September 1979 and 21 December 1979, appointed Dr. Gérard de Ren on 8 January 1980 pursuant to Article 7 of Section 4 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations. In the meantime the complaint announced by B. had been sent to the European Parliament's Director for Personnel and Social Affairs on 16 September 1979. On 12 October 1979 B. brought the present action before the Court and at the same time made an application under Article 91 (4) of the Staff Regulations for the adoption of interim measures with the object of obtaining an adjournment of the proceedings of the Invalidity Committee pending the adoption of a final decision as to the occupational nature of his illness. That application was dismissed by an order made on 5 December 1979 by the Judge acting as President of the Court, the President himself being unable to attend. On 15 January 1980 the President of the European Parliament expressly rejected the applicant's complaint of 16 September 1979.