Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 1984. - Georgette Seiler and others v Council of the European Communities. - Official - Occupational disease. - Case 189/82.



European Court reports 1984 Page 00229



Summary

Parties

Subject of the case

Grounds

Decision on costs

Operative part



Keywords

OFFICIALS - SOCIAL SECURITY - INSURANCE AGAINST THE RISK OF ACCIDENT AND OF OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE - DISEASE - EXAMINATION AS TO OCCUPATIONAL ORIGIN - POWERS OF APPOINTING AUTHORITY - CONSULTING A MEDICAL COMMITTEE - REVIEW BY THE COURT - SCOPE AND LIMITS

( STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS , ART . 73 )

Summary

IT IS NOT FOR THE COURT TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT IN AN INDIVIDUAL CASE AN OFFICIAL HAS BEEN AFFECTED BY AN OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 73 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS . HOWEVER , THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO ANNUL ANY DECISION TAKEN BY THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY IN APPLICATION OF THAT PROVISION IF IT IS VITIATED BY ILLEGALITY INASMUCH AS IT IS BASED ON AN IRRELEVANT CONCLUSION REACHED BY A MEDICAL COMMITTEE . THAT WOULD BE THE CASE IF THE MEDICAL COMMITTEE ADOPTED AN ERRONEOUS VIEW OF THE CONCEPT OF ' ' OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE ' ' OR IF ITS REPORT DID NOT ESTABLISH A COMPREHENSIBLE LINK BETWEEN THE MEDICAL FINDINGS WHICH IT CONTAINS AND THE CONCLUSIONS WHICH IT DRAWS .

Parties

IN CASE 189/82

1 . GEORGETTE SEINGRY , NEE SEILER , WIDOW OF RENE SEINGRY , FORMERLY AN OFFICIAL OF THE GENERAL SECRETARIAT OF THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ;

2.FLORENCE SEINGRY , ADULT DAUGHTER OF RENE SEINGRY ;

3.GEORGES-FRANCIS SEINGRY , ADULT SON OF RENE SEINGRY ;

ALL RESIDING IN BRUSSELS , REPRESENTED BY EDMOND LEBRUN OF THE BRUSSELS BAR , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE CHAMBERS OF TONY BIEVER , 83 BOULEVARD GRANDE-DUCHESSE-CHARLOTTE ,

APPLICANTS ,

V

COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES , REPRESENTED BY JOHN CARBERY , AN ADVISER IN THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT OF THE GENERAL SECRETARIAT OF THE COUNCIL IN BRUSSELS , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICE OF H . J . PABBRUWE , DIRECTOR OF THE LEGAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT OF THE EUROPEAN INVESTMENT BANK , 100 BOULEVARD KONRAD-ADENAUER ,

DEFENDANT ,

IN THE PRESENCE OF

SA ROYALE BELGE , AN INSURANCE COMPANY HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 25 BOULEVARD DU SOUVERAIN , WATERMAEL-BOITSFORT ( 1170 BRUSSELS ), ACTING IN ITS OWN RIGHT AND AS AGENT OF THE FOLLOWING INSURANCE COMPANIES :

1 . SA GENERALI BELGIUM ( CONCORDE ), BRUSSELS ,

2 . SA CAISSE PATRONALE , BRUSSELS ,

3 . SA ASSURANTIE VAN DE BELGISCHE BOERENBOND , LOUVAIN ,

4 . SA WINTERTHUR , BRUSSELS ,

5 . SA ZURICH , BRUSSELS ,

6 . SA ASSUBEL , BRUSSELS ,

7 . SA SECURITAS ( FORMERLY LE PHENIX BELGE ), ANTWERP ,

8 . SA RHIN ET MOSELLE , BRUSSELS ,

9 . SA LE FOYER , BRUSSELS ,

10 . NATIONALE NEDERLANDEN , SCHADEVERZEKERINGSMAATSCHAPPIJ NV , THE HAGUE , THE NETHERLANDS ,

11 . SA PHOENIX CONTINENTAL , BRUSSELS ,

12 . TOP INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE CO . LTD ., BALLERUP , DENMARK ,

13 . EXCESS INSURANCE COMPANY LTD ., LONDON , UNITED KINGDOM ,

14 . ALLIANZ VERSICHERUNGS-AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT , MUNICH , FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY ,

REPRESENTED BY FRANCOIS VAN DER MENSBRUGGHE OF THE BRUSSELS BAR , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE CHAMBERS OF JEAN HOSS , 15 COTE D ' EICH ,

INTERVENER ,

Subject of the case

APPLICATION FOR THE ANNULMENT OF THE DECISIONS OF THE SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE COUNCIL , NOTIFIED TO THE APPLICANTS BY LETTERS OF 19 OCTOBER 1981 AND 14 MAY 1982 , REFUSING TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE DISEASE OF WHICH R . SEINGRY DIED WAS OCCUPATIONAL IN ORIGIN ,

Grounds

1 BY APPLICATION LODGED AT THE COURT REGISTRY ON 28 JULY 1982 , GEORGETTE SEINGRY , NEE SEILER , WIDOW OF RENE SEINGRY , IN HIS LIFETIME AN OFFICIAL IN THE SECRETARIAT OF THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES , FLORENCE SEINGRY AND GEORGES-FRANCIS SEINGRY , ADULT DAUGHTER AND SON RESPECTIVELY OF RENE SEINGRY , BROUGHT A CLAIM FOR THE ANNULMENT OF THE DECISION OF THE SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE COUNCIL OF 19 OCTOBER 1981 REFUSING TO RECOGNIZE THE DISEASE WHICH CAUSED THE DEATH OF RENE SEINGRY AS AN OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE , AND OF THE DECISION OF THE SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE COUNCIL OF 14 MAY 1982 REJECTING THEIR COMPLAINT . THE APPLICANTS ALSO CLAIM THAT THE COURT SHOULD ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE DISEASE IN QUESTION WAS AN OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE AND SHOULD ORDER THE DEFENDANT TO PAY TO THEM THE BENEFITS PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 73 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS IN THE EVENT OF THE DEATH OF AN OFFICIAL AS A RESULT OF AN OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE .

2 IN SUPPORT OF THEIR CLAIMS , THE APPLICANTS SUBMIT THAT RENE SEINGRY , AN OFFICIAL OF THE COMMUNITIES FROM 1954 AND DIRECTOR OF THE PRIVATE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE COUNCIL FROM 1958 , DIED AT HIS PLACE OF WORK ON 23 JULY 1979 AS A RESULT OF MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION . THEY CLAIM THAT THE HEART DISEASE AROSE IN THE COURSE OF THE PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES WITH THE COUNCIL AND MUST THEREFORE BE DESCRIBED AS AN OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 73 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS , PARTICULARLY AS THE DECEASED OFFICIAL HAD ALREADY HAD A PREVIOUS HEART ATTACK IN 1977 AFTER A PROLONGED PERIOD OF OVERWORK .

3 BY VIRTUE OF ARTICLE 73 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS , AN OFFICIAL AND , IN THE EVENT OF HIS DEATH , THOSE ENTITLED UNDER HIM ARE INSURED AGAINST THE RISK OF OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE , SUBJECT TO RULES DRAWN UP BY COMMON AGREEMENT OF THE INSTITUTIONS OF THE COMMUNITIES .

4 THE RULES REFERRED TO BY THAT PROVISION ( HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ' ' THE JOINT RULES ' ' ) PROVIDE FIRST , IN ARTICLE 3 ( 1 ), THAT ANY DISEASE SPECIFIED IN THE ' ' EUROPEAN LIST OF OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES ' ' , ANNEXED TO THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION OF 23 JULY 1962 ON INDUSTRIAL MEDICINE IN UNDERTAKINGS ( JOURNAL OFFICIEL 1962 , P . 2181 ) IS TO BE CONSIDERED AN OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE . IT IS COMMON GROUND THAT CORONARY DISEASES DO NOT APPEAR ON THAT LIST .

5 ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 3 ( 2 ) OF THE JOINT RULES : ' ' ANY DISEASE OR AGGRAVATION OF A PRE-EXISTING DISEASE NOT INCLUDED IN THE LIST REFERRED TO IN PARAGRAPH ( 1 ) SHALL ALSO BE CONSIDERED AN OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE IF IT IS SUFFICIENTLY ESTABLISHED THAT SUCH DISEASE OR AGGRAVATION AROSE IN THE COURSE OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE PERFORMANCE BY THE OFFICIAL OF HIS DUTIES WITH THE COMMUNITIES . ' '

6 ARTICLE 19 OF THE JOINT RULES PROVIDES THAT DECISIONS RECOGNIZING THE OCCUPATIONAL NATURE OF A DISEASE ARE TO BE TAKEN BY THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY ON THE BASIS OF THE FINDINGS OF THE DOCTOR OR DOCTORS APPOINTED BY THE INSTITUTIONS AND , WHERE THE OFFICIAL OR THOSE ENTITLED UNDER HIM SO REQUEST , AFTER CONSULTING THE MEDICAL COMMITTEE REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 23 OF THE RULES .

7 ON 10 OCTOBER 1979 , THE APPLICANTS SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION TO THE SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE COUNCIL REQUESTING THAT IT SHOULD RECOGNIZE THE OCCUPATIONAL NATURE OF THE DISEASE WHICH CAUSED THE DEATH OF RENE SEINGRY , CLAIMING THAT THERE WAS A DIRECT LINK BETWEEN THE HEART FAILURE OF WHICH HE DIED AND HIS WORKING CONDITIONS AND PRESSURE OF WORK SINCE 1958 .

8 THE SECRETARY GENERAL THEN CONSULTED THE DOCTOR APPOINTED BY THE COUNCIL , WHO REACHED THE CONCLUSION THAT ' ' IN GENERAL , INFARCTION IS NOT RECOGNIZED AS AN OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE ' ' .

9 IT MAY BE SEEN FROM THE PAPERS BEFORE THE COURT THAT THE DOCTOR CONSULTED HAD HIMSELF OBTAINED THE OPINION OF PROFESSOR DENOLIN , A SPECIALIST IN CARDIOLOGY , WHOSE COMMENTS , ON EXAMINING RENE SEINGRY ' S MEDICAL FILE , INCLUDED THE FOLLOWING :

' ' . . . WE HAVE NO INFORMATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF HIS HEART CONDITION IN RECENT YEARS .

ON THE BASIS OF SUCH AN INADEQUATE FILE , IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO REACH A CONCLUSION AS TO THE POSSIBLE ROLE OF OCCUPATIONAL STRESS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ILLNESS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF DEATH . BUT IS IS POSSIBLE TO POINT TO AT LEAST ONE FACTOR GIVING RISE TO A MAJOR RISK : THE SERIOUS NICOTINISM RESULTING FROM CIGARETTE SMOKING ' ' .

10 THE APPLICANTS REQUESTED THAT THE MEDICAL COMMITTEE BE CONSULTED , AND THE SECRETARY GENERAL DECIDED TO APPOINT SUCH A COMMITTEE . THE DOCUMENTS SUPPLIED TO THE COURT SHOW THAT THE COMMITTEE WAS ASKED TO ' ' EXPRESS ITS VIEW AS TO WHETHER THE DISEASE WHICH CAUSED THE DEATH OF RENE SEINGRY SHOULD BE REGARDED AS HAVING BEEN CAUSED BY HIS OCCUPATION ' ' .

11 IN ITS REPORT , THE COMMITTEE FOUND IN SUBSTANCE THAT THE PATHOGENESIS OF CORONARY DISEASE INVOLVES A NUMBER OF FACTORS AND IT REFERRED IN PARTICULAR TO HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE , NICOTINISM AND AN EXCESSIVE LEVEL OF CHOLESTEROL IN THE BLOOD , ALL FACTORS WHICH WERE PRESENT IN THE CASE OF RENE SEINGRY . THE CONCLUSION OF THE REPORT WAS WORDED AS FOLLOWS :

' ' IT APPEARS THAT THE PARTICULARLY EXACTING WORKING LIFE LED BY MR SEINGRY MAY HAVE BEEN A FACTOR WHICH AGGRAVATED HIS CORONARY DISEASE , BUT THERE ARE IN HIS CASE OTHER SIGNIFICANT RISK FACTORS , ESPECIALLY THE NICOTINISM . IN OUR OPINION , THIS CANNOT BE REGARDED AS AN OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE IN THE STRICT SENSE . INDEED , THE FACTOR OF ' OCCUPATIONAL STRESS ' IS ONLY ONE OF THE COMPONENTS OF THE PATHOGENESIS AND , AS DR DENOLIN HAS STATED , IT MAY BE QUESTIONED WHETHER THERE WAS NOT , IN ADDITION TO THE DEMANDING NATURE OF HIS DUTIES AT WORK , AN ELEMENT OF PERFECTIONISM AND HYPERACTIVITY INHERENT IN HIS PSYCHOLOGY . ' '

12 BY DECISION OF 19 OCTOBER 1981 , THE SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE COUNCIL INFORMED THE APPLICANTS THAT , IN VIEW OF THE REPORT OF THE MEDICAL COMMITTEE , IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO RECOGNIZE RENE SEINGRY ' S DISEASE AS HAVING BEEN CAUSED BY HIS OCCUPATION . THE APPLICANTS ' COMPLAINT AGAINST THAT DECISION WAS REJECTED ON THE SAME GROUND BY DECISION OF 14 MAY 1982 .

13 IN CHALLENGING THOSE DECISIONS , THE APPLICANTS SUBMIT THAT THE REPORT OF THE MEDICAL COMMITTEE ON WHICH THE CONTESTED DECISIONS ARE BASED ADOPTS BY IMPLICATION AN ERRONEOUS VIEW OF THE CONCEPT OF OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE . ON THE ONE HAND , THE COMMISSION COULD NOT , AFTER FINDING THAT RENE SEINGRY ' S PARTICULARLY EXACTING WORKING LIFE MAY HAVE BEEN AN AGGRAVATING FACTOR OF THE CORONARY DISEASE WHICH HAD BEEN NOTED AS EARLY AS 1977 , REACH THE CONCLUSION THAT IT WAS NOT AN OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE ' ' IN THE STRICT SENSE ' ' . ON THE OTHER HAND , THE MEDICAL COMMITTEE OVERLOOKED THAT FACT THAT , IN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE APPLICABLE JOINT RULES , THE CONCEPT OF OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE INCLUDES THE AGGRAVATION OF A PRE-EXISTING DISEASE IF , AS IN THIS CASE , SUCH AGGRAVATION ARISES IN THE COURSE OF THE PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES WITH THE COMMUNITIES .

14 ACCORDING TO THE DEFENDANT , THE MEDICAL COMMITTEE BY NO MEANS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE SCOPE OF THE CONCEPT OF OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE AS DEFINED BY THE JOINT RULES . ON THE CONTRARY , IT WAS IN APPLICATION OF THAT DEFINITION THAT THE COMMITTEE , AFTER A DETAILED EXAMINATION OF THE CASE , SHOWED THAT IT WAS NOT AN OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE , IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT , APART FROM MR SEINGRY ' S WORKING LIFE , SEVERAL OTHER FACTORS CONTRIBUTED TO HIS DEATH .

15 IT SHOULD BE POINTED OUT FIRST THAT IT IS NOT FOR THE COURT TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT IN AN INDIVIDUAL CASE AN OFFICIAL HAS BEEN AFFECTED BY AN OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 73 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS . HOWEVER , THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO ANNUL ANY DECISION TAKEN BY THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY IN APPLICATION OF THAT PROVISION IF IT IS VITIATED BY ILLEGALITY INASMUCH AS IT IS BASED ON AN IRRELEVANT CONCLUSION REACHED BY A MEDICAL COMMITTEE . THAT WOULD BE THE CASE IF THE MEDICAL COMMITTEE ADOPTED AN ERRONEOUS VIEW OF THE CONCEPT OF ' ' OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE ' ' OR IF ITS REPORT DID NOT ESTABLISH A COMPREHENSIBLE LINK BETWEEN THE MEDICAL FINDINGS WHICH IT CONTAINS AND THE CONCLUSIONS WHICH IT DRAWS .

16 IN THAT REGARD , THE APPLICANTS ARE JUSTIFIED IN THEIR CONTENTIONS THAT THE MEDICAL COMMITTEE ADDRESSED ITSELF TO THE QUESTION WHETHER A CORONARY DISEASE CAN CONSTITUTE AN OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE AND FAILED TO EXAMINE WHETHER THE AGGRAVATION OF THE CORONARY DISEASE WHICH OCCURRED IN THIS CASE MIGHT BE REGARDED AS THE AGGRAVATION OF A PRE-EXISTING DISEASE WHICH AROSE IN THE COURSE OF THE PERFORMANCE BY THE OFFICIAL OF HIS DUTIES , WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PROVISIONS APPLICABLE . INDEED , SUCH AN EXAMINATION CANNOT BE FOUND EITHER IN THE REPORT OF THE MEDICAL COMMITTEE OR IN THE EARLIER MEDICAL OPINIONS .

17 THE GENERAL TERMS OF THE MANDATE GIVEN TO THE MEDICAL COMMITTEE DO NOT STATE THAT IT IS FOR THE COMMITTEE TO EXAMINE WHETHER THE HEART FAILURE IN QUESTION HAD A SUFFICIENTLY CLOSE LINK WITH A PRE-EXISTING CORONARY DISEASE , AS THE APPLICANTS SUGGESTED IN THEIR APPLICATION , AND WHETHER THE AGGRAVATION OF THE CORONARY DISEASE WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 3 ( 2 ) OF THE JOINT RULES WAS CAUSED BY THE WORKING LIFE OF THE DECEASED OFFICIAL .

18 THE LACK OF PRECISION IN THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN TO THE MEDICAL COMMITTEE MIGHT EXPLAIN THE EQUIVOCAL WAY IN WHICH THE COMMITTEE EXPRESSED ITS VIEWS IN ITS REPORT . INDEED , BY THE REFERENCE IN THE OPINION TO AN ' ' OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE IN THE STRICT SENSE ' ' , A CONCEPT WHICH DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE STAFF REGULATIONS OR IN THE JOINT RULES , THE REPORT SHOWS THAT IT IS DOUBTFUL WHETHER THE COMMITTEE WAS AWARE OF THE PRECISE SCOPE OF THE CONCEPT OF ' ' OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE ' ' .

19 IT IS TRUE THAT THE MEDICAL COMMITTEE REFERRED TO SEVERAL FACTORS WHICH CONTRIBUTED TO THE DEATH OF MR SEINGRY , SUCH AS IN PARTICULAR THE NICOTINISM AND HIS HYPERACTIVE NERVOUS STATE . HOWEVER , IT DID NOT ESTABLISH WHETHER IT WAS ONE OF THOSE FACTORS OR RATHER THE OFFICIAL ' S EXACTING WORKING LIFE WHICH WAS MOST CLOSELY CONNECTED WITH THE CARDIAC FAILURE WHICH CAUSED HIS DEATH .

20 IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES , SERIOUS DOUBTS EXIST , FROM AN EXAMINATION OF THE FILE , AS TO WHETHER THE MEDICAL COMMITTEE WAS GIVEN ADEQUATE INSTRUCTIONS AS TO ITS TASK AND WHETHER IT FAILED TO HAVE REGARD TO ARTICLE 3 ( 2 ) OF THE JOINT RULES .

21 IT FOLLOWS FROM THE FOREGOING THAT THE CONTESTED DECISIONS ARE VITIATED BY ILLEGALITY AND MUST THEREFORE BE ANNULLED , AND THAT THE REMAINDER OF THE APPLICATION MUST BE DISMISSED .

22 IT WILL BE FOR THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY , BEFORE TAKING A DECISION , TO REPEAT THE PROCEDURE PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 29 ET SEQ . OF THE JOINT RULES AND REFER THE MATTER ONCE AGAIN TO THE MEDICAL COMMITTEE , WHOSE TASK IT WILL BE TO EXAMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE CARDIAC FAILURE WHICH CAUSED THE DEATH OF MR SEINGRY WAS AN AGGRAVATION OF A PRE-EXISTING DISEASE AND , IF SO , WHETHER IT IS SUFFICIENTLY ESTABLISHED THAT SUCH AGGRAVATION AROSE IN THE COURSE OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE PERFORMANCE BY THE DECEASED OFFICIAL OF HIS DUTIES .

Decision on costs

COSTS

23 ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 69 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY IS TO BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS IF THEY HAVE BEEN ASKED FOR IN THE SUCCESSFUL PARTY ' S PLEADING . SINCE THE COUNCIL HAS FAILED IN ITS SUBMISSIONS , IT MUST BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS , APART FROM THOSE OF THE INTERVENER WHICH MUST BE BORNE BY THE INTERVENER .

Operative part

ON THOSE GROUNDS ,

THE COURT ( FIRST CHAMBER )

HEREBY :

1 . ANNULS THE DECISION OF THE SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE COUNCIL OF 19 OCTOBER 1981 REFUSING TO RECOGNIZE THE DISEASE WHICH CAUSED THE DEATH OF RENE SEINGRY AS AN OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE AND THE DECISION OF THE SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE COUNCIL OF 14 MAY 1982 REJECTING THE APPLICANTS ' COMPLAINT ;

2.DISMISSES THE REMAINDER OF THE APPLICATION ;

3.ORDERS THE COUNCIL TO PAY THE COSTS , APART FROM THOSE OF THE INTERVENER .